Ron proposed state authorization to ban flag burning?

[polexi]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.82:

:confused::confused:

[ctb619]

would you rather have a federal ban on flag burning?

[polexi]

But why was it introduced in the first place?

[Ex Post Facto]

I think so. It wouldn't surprise me considering, how high he holds the constitution. The flag is a symbol representing that constitution. I would say personally that if burning a flag helps someone express themselves they can do it where it on their own property. If you allowed that in public streets it would probably be considered a fire danger.

I'm not for it or against it but people can have their opinion.

[ctb619]

It was in the context of a Congressional debate to ban flag burning at the federal level. Ron offered a more palatable alternative to make a point.

[itsnobody]

seems strange.....

"However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit flag burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years" - Ron Paul

[idrake]

It was in the context of a Congressional debate to ban flag burning at the federal level. Ron offered a more palatable alternative to make a point.

Sure, and if a state passes a law banning the flag burning, it could be contested and end up before the supreme court using the 1st ammendment argument.

[newmedia4ron]

I do disagree with ron here but I understand the position. not a priority. the guy voted against the patriot act, I'm don't think we will be seeing martial law under a ron paul presidency ;)

[itsnobody]

You have to look at it in context....

"We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court" - Ron Paul

"The problem is minimal. This is more like a solution in search of a problem. We just do not need to amend the Constitution for such a tiny problem.

It was stated earlier that this is the only recourse we have since the Supreme Court ruled the Texas law unconstitutional. That is not true. There are other alternatives.

One merely would be to use State law. There are a lot of State laws, such as laws against arson, disturbing the peace, theft, inciting riots, trespassing. We could deal with all of the flag desecration with these laws. But there is another solution that our side has used and pretends to want to use on numerous occasions, and that is to eliminate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We did it on the marriage issue; we can do it right here.

So to say this is the only solution is incorrect. It is incorrect. And besides, a solution like that would go quickly, pass the House by a majority vote, pass the Senate by a majority vote, and be send to the President. The Schiavo legislation was expedited and passed quickly. Why not do it with the flag? It is a solution, and we should pay attention to it. "

"Is it not rather ironic today that we have troops dying in Iraq, “spreading freedom” and, yet, we are here trying to pass laws similar to what Saddam Hussein had with regard to the flag? I just do not see where that makes a lot of sense."

[Joe3113]

I disagree with flag burning in and of itself, because it's a pointless fire hazard.

Flag destruction as a whole, should not be illegal.

[Enzo]

I think you should be able to burn anything you want. As long as it's your property, and it's not a hazard to anyone else.

[stewie3128]

It was in the context of a Congressional debate to ban flag burning at the federal level. Ron offered a more palatable alternative to make a point.

He does this a lot - introduces legislation he then votes against, or plans to vote against. He does this in order to get many issues out of backchannel forms of manipulation and expose them to the light of open Congressional debate.

[pdavis]

He voted against the legislation! He introduced the amendment for similar reasons he introduced the declaration of war. If we are to go to war, do it legally; if we are to ban flag burning, do it legally.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Exactly. It's very similar to him proposing a declaration of war against Iraq. He would have voted against it of course, but he wanted Congress to do it Constitutionally.

[jeffhenderson]

Yeah, there was a flag-burning law that was clearly in violation of the free speech rights set forth in the constitution. He introduced the amendment to make the point that the only legal way to introduce a law that limits free speech is to change the constitution.

It's another vain attempt to try to get his fellow lawmakers to actually think about what is written in the constitution.

Here is the statement he delivered with it.

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/statement_on_the_flag_burning_amendment_by_us_rep_ ron_paul.html

[Matt]

He voted against the legislation! He introduced the amendment for similar reasons he introduced the declaration of war. If we are to go to war, do it legally; if we are to ban flag burning, do it legally.

Exactly! Ron Paul is a Constitutional Ninja. :D

[JohnnyWrath]

Freedom of speech....

although those that would choose to burn a flag here are asking for trouble and a beat down.


That's why you won't see it often....law abiding citizens may actually lose it and smash you in the head with a brick....seriously, yu have to have some BIG balls to burn a flag in public....you are begging to get hurt.