Flag Burning Amendment? Really?

[kylejack]

This really disappoints me.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80:

[fgd]

Eh, whatever. It is, on the other hand, the proper way to make flag burning illegal.

[Sematary]

This pops up every now and again to try and get the sheep on board with Congress' inability to do anything.

[garrettwombat]

wow no one else?

[Jordan]

The key to stopping flag burning is to provide a government people like.

[me3]

Why? He seeked to do it through a Constitutional Amendment. It's a long process to evoke the change, and creates an opportunity for dialog.

We should never be disappointed at Dr. Paul for creating dialog about the country.

[Naraku]

I'd be angry if it weren't for the fact he was taking an interesting way out:


The States shall have power to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.'.

Not a bad way of doing it actually. It's not as bad as the other amendments.

[kylejack]

Why? He seeked to do it through a Constitutional Amendment. It's a long process to evoke the change, and creates an opportunity for dialog.

We should never be disappointed at Dr. Paul for creating dialog about the country.
Of course an Amendment is the proper way, but there's also such a thing as a proper amendment. An amendment to limit freedom of expression is fundamentally wrong, not Constitutionally, but ethically, and runs counter to Ron Paul's message.

[Mark Rushmore]

Given that it's an amendment proposal, not your regular legislation, I almost wonder if it was put forward in response to attempts to pass a regular law to the same effect. Something along the lines of, "If you really want to try and do this, here is the proper way to go about it." Of course that's just the first thing that comes to mind, I have no idea the actual history. I just don't think people propose constitutional amendments all that often when they just want to accomplish something for its own end, it wouldn't be a prudent approach.

[MozoVote]

This is so.... so.... 1988.

It's the kind of ridiculous politics that caused me to began to question what was happening to the post-Reagan GOP. I would hope Ron introduced this, more as an effort to expose just how stupid all this hysteria was about flag burning.

[Fyretrohl]

Yeah, someone needs to go back and find out if this was put forward at the same time as other attempts to ban flag burning. Remember, Ron Paul is against the war, but, didn't he propose a Congressional DoW? Basically, he says do it the RIGHT way or stop whining about it.

[Sematary]

This really disappoints me.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80:

You're disappointed in something that happened 10 years ago?

[jake]

i'm surprised by this bill, actually.

[kylejack]

You're disappointed in something that happened 10 years ago?
Yes, possibly. Depending on the context.

[kylejack]

i'm surprised by this bill, actually. how is flag burning prohibited by the constitution?

Its allowed by the Constitution. This Amendment proposal seeked to allow government to ban flag burning.

[me3]

kyle, I think a little more investigation on this is required, and the onus is on you to provide some more background on Dr. Paul's position, since you introduced the topic.

It's not effective for any of us to sit here and speculate, and it only does a disservice to the Doctor to do so.

Let's get some background and frame this within it's context, before criticizing or applauding it too loudly.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Didn't he oppose the flag burning amendment when it came up in 2005?

[kylejack]

Okay, I think Paul is in the clear. A related amendment was proposed: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00054:@@@X

Paul voted No. So what was with the one he proposed, I wonder?

[fcofer]

Didn't he oppose the flag burning amendment when it came up in 2005?

I certainly hope so. This is the first time I've seen anything on these forums that I want to suppress.

[Bob Cochran]

Of course an Amendment is the proper way, but there's also such a thing as a proper amendment. An amendment to limit freedom of expression is fundamentally wrong, not Constitutionally, but ethically, and runs counter to Ron Paul's message.
I say let people burn the US flag. I don't like it on a visceral level, but if they want to publicly show that they're complete dolts who can't find a more eloquent and specific way to say what's on their minds, let them.

It's like people who repeately drop F-bombs. It's just a way of saying, "Hey, look at me, I only recently learned this way to get a little shock response out of gentle folk, I'm severly challenged in my relational-expressive skills and I want you to notice me!"

So, burn the flag and say "F this F that" all you want. Most people will just walk by, ignore you for the most part, and laugh under their breath at your futile stupidity.
.
.
.

[Naraku]

Here's why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag-burning_amendment

Look at 1995.

[MozoVote]

I would assume there were worse proposals on the table. Maybe Dr Paul wanted to present something "made more sense" if they were intent on voting on an amendment.

[couvi]

Ron Paul on flag burning

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html

[Green Mountain Boy]

Ron Paul on another flag burning amendment:


The Flag Burning Amendment

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 3, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, although unenthusiastically. I am not too excited about this process, and certainly I am not very excited about this proposal to amend the Constitution. As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.

It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair. And an earlier statement was made by the gentleman from Florida that everybody here is patriotic and nobody's patriotism should be challenged.

It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with more than just the flag.

First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people – that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach. Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.

Here we are, amending the Constitution for a noncrisis. How many cases of flag burning have we seen? I have seen it on television a few times in the last year, but it was done on foreign soil, by foreigners, who had become angry at us over our policies, but I do not see that many Americans in the streets burning up flags. There were probably a lot more in previous decades, but in recent years it averages out to about eight, about eight cases a year, and they are not all that horrendous. It involves more vandalism, teenagers taking flags and desecrating the flag and maybe burning it, and there are local laws against that.

This is all so unnecessary. There are already laws against vandalism. There are state laws that say they cannot do it and they can be prosecuted. So this is overkill.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has helped to create this. I know a lot of people depend on the Supreme Court to protect us, but in many ways, I think the Supreme Court has hurt us. So I agree with those who are promoting this amendment that the Supreme Court overreacted, because I think the States should have many more prerogatives than they do. Many states have these laws, and I believe that we should have a Supreme Court that would allow more solutions to occur at the state level. They would be imperfect, no doubt, it would not be perfect protection of liberty by state laws. But let me tell my colleagues, when we come here as politicians and superpatriots and we pass amendments to the Constitution, that will be less than perfect, then it will be just like the Supreme Court – a poor national solution.

It is a ruling for everyone, and if we make a mistake, it affects everybody in every state, and that is what I am afraid we are doing here.

The First Amendment has been brought up on several occasions, and I am sure it will be mentioned much more in general debate. This amendment does not directly violate the First Amendment, but what it does, it gives Congress the authority to write laws that will violate the First Amendment, and this is where the trouble is. Nothing but confusion and litigation can result.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe much good will come of it. A lot of good intentions are put into the effort, but I see no real benefit.

It was mentioned earlier that those who supported campaign finance laws were inconsistent. And others would say that we do not have to worry about the First amendment when we are dealing with the flag amendments. But I would suggest there is another position. Why can we not be for the First amendment when it comes to campaign finance reform and not ask the government to regulate the way we spend our money and advertise, while at the same time supporting the First amendment here?

It seems that consistency is absent in this debate.

It is said by the chairman of the committee that he does not want to hear much more about the First amendment. We have done it before, so therefore it must be okay. But we should not give up that easily.

He suggested that we have amended the Constitution before when the courts have ruled a certain way. And he is absolutely right, we can do that and we have done that. But to use the 16th amendment as a beautiful example of how the Congress solves problems, I would expect the same kind of dilemma coming out of this amendment as we have out of the 16th amendment which, by the way, has been questioned by some historians as not being correctly ratified.

I think one of our problems has been that we have drifted away from the rule of law, we have drifted away from saying that laws ought to be clear and precise and we ought to all have a little interpretation of the laws.

The gentleman earlier had said that there are laws against slander so therefore we do violate the First amendment. Believe me, I have never read or heard about a legislative body or a judge who argued that you can lie and commit fraud under the First amendment. But the First amendment does say "Congress shall write no laws." That is precise. So even the laws dealing with fraud and slander should be written by the States. This is not a justification for us to write an amendment that says Congress shall write laws restricting expression through the desecration of the flag.

This amendment, as written so far, does not cause the conflict. It will be the laws that will be written and then we will have to decide what desecration is and many other things.

Earlier in the debate it was said that an individual may well be unpatriotic if he voted against a Defense appropriation bill. I have voted against the Defense appropriation bill because too much money in the Defense budget goes to militarism that does not really protect our country. I do not believe that is being unpatriotic.

Mr. Speaker, let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state's authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.

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.

Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there have been only 16 documented cases of flag burning in the last two years, and the majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local law enforcement!

Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, "Congress shall make no law.'' That was the spirit of our Nation at that time: "Congress shall make no laws."

Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun – if your actions do not fit the official definition of a "patriot,'' we will send somebody to arrest you.

Fortunately, Congress has models of flag desecration laws. For example, Saddam Hussein made desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but in fact there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides of this issue. I would like to quote a past national commander of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said:

"Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation."

Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Colin Powell has also expressed opposition to amending the constitution in this manner:

"I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away."

Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not even reach the majority of cases of flag burning. When we see flag burning on television, it is usually not American citizens, but foreigners who have strong objections to what we do overseas, burning the flag. This is what I see on television and it is the conduct that most angers me.

One of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State Department keeps records of how often the Red Chinese persecute people for burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not have most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among those members who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for punishing those who burn the Chinese flag.

Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people's churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom.

Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is community owned? If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word "desecration," which is traditionally reserved for religious symbols, the authors of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on the same plane as the symbol of the church. The practical effect of this is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon. Perhaps this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen as interchangeable with the church. In any case, those who believe we have "No king but Christ" should be troubled by this amendment.

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.

[American]

I agree with it 100% "Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags." I dont want to pay for more flags if someone wants to burn a federally owned flag.

This is a property issue to me.

[American]

This really disappoints me.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80:

it really disappoints me too, that you posted this in the grassroots section of the forum....do you have an alias on here, maybe Dave Wood?

:D

[kylejack]

Here's another one: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:

Why does the United States have the right to reclaim the Panama Canal Zone? Isn't this an affront to the sovereignty we granted Panama? Sorry to bring all this up, but I'm dealing with someone who has dug up a lot of old legislation. Thanks in advance.

[Goldwater Conservative]

It's worded to give the states the power to regulate the issue, and Congress to regulate it as concerns federally owned flags... however, I still vehemently disagree with it. Bizarre that he'd propose this for any reason. I can forgive him for it, and I still think there are far more pressing issues today, but I am curious to hear what he has to say about this.

[JMO]

I am not sure why anyone is upset with Dr Paul proposal. his proposal makes it against the law to burn property owned by the United States and gives states the right to do the same. it's not saying you can't buy your own flag and burn it. no one should be allowed to burn property bought and paid for by the American public and if they do they should be punished.

[JMO]

FOR RELEASE:
December 7, 1999

Paul Questions Implications of Canal Turnover

WASHINGTON, DC - With the end of the year quickly approaching, Congressman Ron Paul is expressing serious concern over the transfer of the Panama Canal to the Panamanian government. Questioning the validity of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty, Paul is concerned about what the transfer will mean to US national security and commercial interests. "I opposed the ambiguous Panama Canal Treaties during my first terms in Congress," Paul said, "and I am completely against carrying out the provisions of the 'non-treaty' under which we are currently operating."
Paul serves as Chairman of the House Banking Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, where hearings are scheduled for Tuesday, December 7th and Wednesday, December 8th. The financial and commercial impact of the Panama Canal transfer will be discussed, and witnesses from both the United States and Panama will be present for questioning. These hearings will examine the future security of US commercial and protective interests after implementation of the Canal Treaty, as well as the stability and security of the financial and banking systems of the Republic of Panama.
Congressman Paul plans to ask the witnesses several pointed questions regarding what the transfer will mean to US national security, the physical condition and upkeep of the Canal, and the efficiency of operations. He will also call into question the leases by Panama of the canal's anchor ports to the Chinese Communist government. He will also question foreign aid that American taxpayers will be expected to provide Panama to ensure continuous operation of the Canal.
Recently, Paul introduced H.Con.Res. 231, expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States. According to him, "The transfer of the Panama Canal increasingly erodes our already waning national sovereignty by handing over that which is rightfully ours, placing us in the unconstitutional role of 'big brother' to the Panamanian government." Paul stated, "The Panama Canal is and always has been ours and should continue to be so."
Additionally, Paul has pointed out that treaties are the responsibility of the Senate. That body, he says, should accept the responsibility it has to the national security of this country and act to nullify the Carter-Torrijos Treaties and keep the Panama Canal.
The transfer of the Panama Canal to the Panamanian government is scheduled for completion on December 31, 1999.

[kylejack]

I am not sure why anyone is upset with Dr Paul proposal. his proposal makes it against the law to burn property owned by the United States and gives states the right to do the same. it's not saying you can't buy your own flag and burn it. no one should be allowed to burn property bought and paid for by the American public and if they do they should be punished.

It gives states the rights to criminalize flag burning.

[steph3n]

If you look at it, it basically says it is illegal to burn federal property only, and that is already illegal :D

[kylejack]

If you look at it, it basically says it is illegal to burn federal property only, and that is already illegal :D

...and, allows states to criminalize flag burning.

[steph3n]

...and, allows states to criminalize flag burning.
Read his input on it, it is interesting :)

[kylejack]

Read his input on it, it is interesting :)

You have his input on the bill he submitted in 1997? Where?

[MozoVote]

The Panama Canal motion was a "Sense of the Congress". So he was not trying to block the treaty, so much as to get the other members to take interest in the handover and address security issues.

[fcofer]

I felt better after reading this explanation that Paul gave in the house: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html (looks like someone already posted it in entirety earlier).

Personally, I disagree, since I feel that the Constitutional amendments should be incorporated to the States, but Ron Paul's reasoning is still pro-liberty federalism, as always.

Basically, he's saying that it's better to let the states make the rules so that we don't run the risk of extinguishing a liberty all at once with the federal government. Best that the federal government not have the power, one way or another. At any rate, he's being consistent. (Whew!)

[kylejack]

The Panama Canal motion was a "Sense of the Congress". So he was not trying to block the treaty, so much as to get the other members to take interest in the handover and address security issues.

H.CON.RES.231: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.

H.RES.1410: A resolution in support of continued undiluted U.S. sovereignty and jurisdiction over the U.S.-owned Canal Zone on the Isthmus of Panama.

H.R.2522: A bill to prohibit the use of any United States funds to implement the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 unless the use of those funds for that purpose is hereafter expressly provided for by the Congress and to prohibit the transfer to the Republic of Panama any territory or other property of the United States in the Canal Zone unless the Congress hereafter enacts legislation which expressly authorizes such transfer.

[JMO]

I posted the panama canal press release by Ron Paul. you can find it by googling the name of the bill with the words Ron Paul added to it

[stevedasbach]

Given that it's an amendment proposal, not your regular legislation, I almost wonder if it was put forward in response to attempts to pass a regular law to the same effect. Something along the lines of, "If you really want to try and do this, here is the proper way to go about it." Of course that's just the first thing that comes to mind, I have no idea the actual history. I just don't think people propose constitutional amendments all that often when they just want to accomplish something for its own end, it wouldn't be a prudent approach.

I think this was probably similar to his motion to declare war on Iraq (which he stated he would vote against) - an effort to derail a federal law banning flag burning.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Okay, I really should have read the rest of this thread before posting the first time. After reading up on it, Paul voted against every such proposal that actually came up for a vote. It seems he only made this proposal as a way to make the amendment more acceptable from a federalist perspective... although making it more acceptable seems counterintuitive, especially since even if something more extreme passed Congress, it's probably unlikely that 38 states would also pass it.

Anyway, my support for him had gone from 99% to 98%, but now it's back to where it was.

[ronpaulyourmom]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html


Even though he introduced it, he voted against it. Gotta love it.

[fcofer]

Anyway, my support for him had gone from 99% to 98%, but now it's back to where it was.

Ditto.

[me3]

This stuff belongs in the issues forum, not the grassroots. C'mon Kyle.

[ValidusCustodiae]

I agree with it 100% "Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags." I dont want to pay for more flags if someone wants to burn a federally owned flag.

This is a property issue to me.

Agree, if you own an object then the government state or federal has no right to tell you what to do with that object.

[Shii]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html


Even though he introduced it, he voted against it. Gotta love it.
Bump in case people didn't see this yet-- please link to Greenwald's article if someone brings this up, so they'll get their criticism thrown right back in their face.

[itsnobody]

I'm not really bothered by this...I mean who cares its so insignificant our REAL freedoms is what I care about...

"This is all so unnecessary. There are already laws against vandalism. There are state laws that say they cannot do it and they can be prosecuted. So this is overkill."

"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

[foofighter20x]

What I don't get:

Most regulations and even federal law (and even the Boy Scout's Handbook!) require that worn or damaged flags that are to be retired be retired by burning them...

So if they outlaw burning them, how do we then retire old, worn out flags that are dirty and have holes ripped in them?

[Ron Paul Fan]

Paul voted against it everytime it came to a vote! Why is this an issue again? Remember when he wanted the Congress to declare war against Iraq? Did this mean he wanted to go to war against Iraq? NO! I'm saying that we should take our marching orders from the Constitution! Declare war if you want to go to war! Go to war, fight it, and win it! Amend the Constitution if you want to prohibit flag burning! Send it to the states to ratify, pass it, and enforce it!

[Richandler]

So why can't I burn the flag in celebration of a free country. Why would anyone care. If you personally care about flag burning issue then you have problem with getting in other peoples business. This movement is about individual freedom.

[ronpaulyourmom]

So why can't I burn the flag in celebration of a free country. Why would anyone care. If you personally care about flag burning issue then you have problem with getting in other peoples business. This movement is about individual freedom.

You can, and Ron Paul agrees that you can, that's why he voted against it after having introduced it. He was simply educating people on the due process of government.

[Sakimoto]

Paul voted against it everytime it came to a vote! Why is this an issue again? Remember when he wanted the Congress to declare war against Iraq? Did this mean he wanted to go to war against Iraq? NO! I'm saying that we should take our marching orders from the Constitution! Declare war if you want to go to war! Go to war, fight it, and win it! Amend the Constitution if you want to prohibit flag burning! Send it to the states to ratify, pass it, and enforce it!

Exactly. He did it to make a point to the lawbreakers in congress. People need to look a little deeper instead of the kneejerk reactions... Ron Paul knows what liberty is about... If you read something that suggests otherwise, it's wise to do a little research instead of getting all disappointed.

[TheEvilDetector]

If people want to burn a flag, let them burn a flag.

The whole idea of banning flag burning as if its something so dangerous and scary is laughable when TV and Cinema is saturated with violence.

[saahmed]

What? I thought I read somewhere that he voted against something like this? A constitutional amendment to ban it? What happened to freedom of speech? I don't agree that it should be done, but it should not be criminal. This does disappointment me, but it does not mean he does not have my support. His pluses are better than his negatives. This would be the first big negative I have seen.

EDIT: Okay, guess I should have read the thread. Still, the fact that he brought up an amendment to ban it is somewhat displeasing. But at least he opposes it.

[Ron Paul Fan]

What? I thought I read somewhere that he voted against something like this? A constitutional amendment to ban it? What happened to freedom of speech? I don't agree that it should be done, but it should not be criminal. This does disappointment me, but it does not mean he does not have my support. His pluses are better than his negatives. This would be the first big negative I have seen.

Did you even read the thread or the salon link above? He voted against it everytime it came to a vote. He introduced it to do it Constitutionally like he did with the Declaration of War against Iraq.

[TopJimmy]

If memory serves (and to put it simply), Dr. Paul's sentiment was, "If you wanna ban flag burning, then you'll have to amend the 1st amendment. Any takers?"

[dmitchell]

This was done for the same reason he introduced a bill to declare war on Iraq: not because he thought it was a good idea, but to make Congress follow the rules.

[Jon S]

burning the flag is supposed to be the honorable way to dispose of a flag that is old and worn. its part of the whole code of ethics surrounding the owning of a flag.

guess no one else was in boy scouts here

[Korey Kaczynski]

The ammendment is really a reaffirmation of the tenth amendment in the context of flag destruction. That's it.