Flag Burning Amendment? Really?

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.
 
This stuff belongs in the issues forum, not the grassroots. C'mon Kyle.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?"
 
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.
 
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
 
The ammendment is really a reaffirmation of the tenth amendment in the context of flag destruction. That's it.
 
Back
Top