Daily Kos

Clinton sponsors anti-flag burning law

by kos

Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:52:57 PM PDT

She's continuing to brush up on her "moderate" cred for her presidential run.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.

Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

Let's see what this law does:

The Bennett-sponsored measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.

Lighting someone else's flag is probably already a crime. That's a no-brainer. "Intimidating any person" seems like unconstitutionally vague language. Meanwhile, banning the burning of a flag on federal property seems like an impermissible restriction unless there are similar bans on any kind of burning on federal property (which could be made based on safety grounds). Somehow, I doubt that's the case.

Sigh. Some shmuck burns a flag, and it's the end of the Republic to some people. As if our nation is that weak.

Update: Georgia10 blogged this earlier.

  • ::

Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 461 comments

  •  Didn't we already go though this? (4.00 / 2)

    I might be rusty here, but didn't this sort of law get overturned by the Supreme Court in 1989?

    This is like spitting in the wind.

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:54:21 PM PDT

    •  What is her problem? (4.00 / 12)

      Now, I know why she didn't divorce Bill.  She would do anything to maintain her access to power.  Looks like I'll have to told my nose yet again in 2008.  What a sad state of affairs if Hillary is our best hope to unseat the GOP.  She can't win running as a GOP-lite.  Don't screw your base.

      by elliott on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:05:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you won't have to hold your nose (4.00 / 16)

        because she WON'T be our nominee in 2008.

        Not if I (you or we) have anything to say about it...

        by Damien in Texas on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:15:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please, please I hope you are right!! (4.00 / 4)

          God, what is the matter with that lady???????
          Does she have a clue about ANYthing that makes real sense?? Where is this coming from-WTF??

          by Phil S 33 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:32:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ask Wes Clark (none / 0)

            he agrees with her.

            ==== The More You Know *

            by ZT155 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:32:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  smart, beat them to the punch (4.00 / 2)

              the Reps always run on these items

              Kos remind yourself what you felt during  the time you were in service. Such a bill would camoflague the Reps poor treatment of Vets  as a partisan screen, Hillary outflanked them.

              I've posted this before, it was something kerry and Edwards refused to establish during their run and it would have Tsunami'd the swift boaters:
              Support the ban on flag burning...
              by Mr Murder [Unsubscribe] [Edit Diary]
              Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 05:30:29 PM PDT
              This is an opportunity

              Conyers is America's Conscience.

              by Mr Murder on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:37:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  cpdified three items: (none / 1)

                1)Flag Burning without a burening permit Consitutes pollution, let's combine the language with the stornger era of EPA regulations.
                2)Combine this with local ordinance for litter(the remained of flag) when intent to discredit others is the issue. Hillary has established the idea that INTENT is the key and if one proves this was done to intimidate others the vague wording could easily apply to crossburners.

                3) The damage would be upon the establishment of intent, or negligence in public venues. This would of course open the TORT statute to a loophole of cieling enforcement. Make Republicans take away the price tag they place on Patriotism. Once this is enacted the 14th Amendment allows it to apply in every instance. Equal protection would become part of the TORT waiver in such regards and allow every person wronged to seek just comepnsation, AND damages. Damges do not have to be compensatory they can become punitative in the size of their reward.

                Conyers is America's Conscience.

                by Mr Murder on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:44:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  sorry for the typos (none / 0)

                  didn't proofread enough...

                  Conyers is America's Conscience.

                  by Mr Murder on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:50:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Typos? Shouldn't it be Clinton - (R)? (none / 0)

                    Hillary is trying to beat out Lieberman for being the most Republican Democrat since Zmelly Miller melted down and challenged Chrissy Matthews of HardlyBalls to a spitball duel at dawn.

                    Good thing we have Democratic Primaries:

                    http://www.thenation.com/...

                    http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/

                    Cindy Sheehan On Jonathan:

                    I am so pleased that Jonathan Tasini has stepped forward to challenge Senator Clinton and to take her on as an anti-war candidate.

                    I encourage the people of New York to take a hard look at Mrs. Clinton's dismal record on the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq.

                    Then take a hard look at what Jonathan is saying.

                    We as people who strive for peace and justice should not support a candidate who advocates for continued killing on the basis of flimsy reasoning. It is time to hold the pro-war Democrats responsible for what they are saying and doing also.

                    I fully endorse the idea of peace with justice and support the message that Jonathan is espousing, but I cannot endorse candidates because of my organization's tax-exempt status.

                    I thank Jonathan for his leadership, for his support and I look forward to our continuing efforts to end the war.

                    ---

                    Bye! Bye, Hillary! Bye! Bye!

                    by Kevin Schmidt on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:15:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Nah... (none / 1)

                ...Instead of undermining the Constitution why not instead run on the promise to enact legislation to ban the Republican Party from selling the organs of fallen servicepeople to the Red Chinese? That it hasn't happened yet (to our knowledge) isn't relevant, since when's the last time anyone ever burned and American flag in the US?

                by NewDirection on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:08:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  well, so did Dean (none / 0)

              In the primaries... and both men treated it as a non-issue that should be left to the states. I disagreed strongly with both of them on this, but I understood why they did it. They were dealing with enough Rovian-sponsored wedge issues as it was (gay marriage, anyone?). And it's not like either of them asked to make this an issue - it was a distraction for them to get past as quickly and nondestructively as possible.

              But why would Hillary go out of her way to support this now? She's cosponsoring the fucking legislation.

              You got no fear of the underdog. That's why you will not survive. - Spoon

              by brainiacamor on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 05:17:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Hill has (4.00 / 4)

          just lost any chance for my vote.

          Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.-- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

          by sweettp2063 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:56:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yep! (4.00 / 2)

            Mine, too. We just don't need the ease with which she panders to this or that group in search of votes. God, wouldn't it be nice to have a candidate with ethics and an internal belief system that works?

             Somebody down to earth would be nice. Schweitzer in Montana has potential, I think.

            Obama is the more honorable person.

            by oofer on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:02:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  sounds so familiar (4.00 / 2)

              This is the exact same logic her husband used when they enacted the 1996 Defense of Marriage Bill-- "It will satisfy the conservatives and we know, wink wink, that the Supreme Court will overturn it."

               Unless, of course, they don't.  And don't try to tell me the defense of marriage bill hs been meaningless (then again, without it, we'd probably have had a constitutional amendment against it by now....)

               The most ironic thing about this is that it is a solution without a problem.  Was there an incident that lead to this,  or is it just as hollow as when Shrub I pushed for a constitutional amendment during the 1988 campaign?  I have never seen anyone burn a flag except boyscouts (burning a flag is the only acceptible and patriotic means of disposing of an old flag)

              Politics isn't everything, it's the only thing.

              by tc59 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:05:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Solution without a problem (none / 1)

                Exactly.  What I want to know is why they are spending precious time on this issue when the whole goddamn country is burning down!!  Last time I looked, burning a flag was not causing loss of lives, homes, jobs, freedom, health... I could go on and on.  This is ridiculous.  I know where I stand on this issue and I'm not saying it isn't important.  But it doesn't even come close to being at the top of our priority list in this country today!

                Hillary, get with the program and do something that will actually make a difference.

                "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

                by joanneleon on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:37:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hilary (none / 0)

                  I agree that she is spending too much time on an non-issue.  Does anyone know if she has a committee put together for a run in "08?  I ask because maybe they are working on some sort of strategy.  Instead of waiting for the "wedges" from the repugs, maybe they are trying to beat them to the punch.  Confuse and dilute the issues.   What will be next?  A law banning all rights for gays and establishing gay-interment camps?

                  by paulko on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 06:42:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you--You got it right! (none / 1)

                I was going through the entire blog to see what you put so well.  If it's illegal to burn a flag, then how in "Jesus name" (I know, bad pun) are we to dispose of a worn out, damaged flag?

                Very few may recall a tragic flag burning:  Someone burned the Flag off the sunken battleship Arizona, shortly after it sunk at Pearl Harbor.  The Sailor who burned it meant no disrespect and WAS FOLLOWING THE LAW!

                So Hillary:  If I hang my flag out until the wind tears it to pieces, how exactly am I supposed to dispose of it WITH RESPECT!

                by Russron on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:13:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I've Seen It (none / 0)

                Though its mostly just a bunch of gothic underground kids striking out at "commercial America" in their $70 dollar Hot Topic pants.

                Come on Hil, its free speech! Hillary's lost it now; any candidate supporting the unconstitutional criminalization of speech will never have THIS moderate's support.

                Some men see things as they are and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask, Why Not? ~Robert F. Kennedy

                by Southern Liberal on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 05:38:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  well said (none / 0)

                between this and investigating 'grand theft auto', I think Hillary, as my Senator, is wasting my money and valuable legislative time.  and she is doing so at a time when one of her flagship issues, the War in Iraq, badly needs legislative review and oversight.  can Hillary really claim she wants to investigate video games to reduce violence while wholeheartedly cheerleading this war???  does she really believe in such superficial "defense" of the Constitution while completely undermining one of its most important principles by voting to give the power to declare war solely to the Executive?

                Give me a f-in' break!  Her and Joe Lieberman should be given a clear message.  Their constituencies want substance, not this stupid, smarmy bullshit they're trying to pass off on us.

                John McCain will ban abortion.

                by itsbenj on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:41:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I would vote (none / 0)

            for John McCain before I vote for Hillary Clinton.

            You guys and gals better make sure she doesn't make it out of the primaries...

            For the sake of the country, please make sure she doesn't make it out.

            by FtheNaysayers on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:03:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Dont say that!!! McCain is worse!!! (4.00 / 4)

              Eek.

              But continue with the disdain for Hillary's moves.

              What really galls me about this is that she seems not to shed a tear, care a whit about the BURNING of bodies, thousands of bodies in IRAQ. Yet a fucking piece of cloth, that she cares about.

              Ugh.

              She oughta start taking wardrobe tips from Jean Schmidt.

              Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

              by NYCee on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:50:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  McCain might be worse in terms of a voting record. (none / 0)

                But I think It's fair to say McCain actually believes in a few things.  I don't think Hillary really believes in any political stances, has any coherent ideology.  It's all about whatever it will take to make her popular.  And that's why she's so scary/a horrible candidate.  

                by telephasic on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:22:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  We really have learned nothing (none / 1)

              I don't agree with this position she's taking on this. I hope it is tactical, and I am pretty sure it is because nearly everything the Clinton's do is tactical.

              But, under no circumstances do I fall for the silly notion that John McCain is somehow closer to my positions on abortion rights, fiscal sanity, Social Security, homeland security spending, judicial nominations, individual rights than Hillary Clinton is.

              It is really amazing to me how the left can watch Hillary make tactical jabs to the right and get so pissed that they'd endorse McCain as he does the same, from a position even further to the right.

              If the standard we are measuring both candidates against is their willingness to make smelly deals to achieve power, McCain is every bit as bad as what Hillary is accused of on Kos. He knew that SOB in the white house was in over his head and wrong in every way. But there he was, kissing his ass at the convention even after all they had done to him in 2000. he could have withheld his approval and really sent a message in 2004. but that would have required him to sacrifice his personal ambition, and no way was he doing that. he was interviewed this weekend about the Abramoff scandals and their impact on his comittee, and virtual signed off on the idea that he will do nothing about them. he'll also back up the white house on pre-war INTEL manipulation and any other meaningful investigation of their abuse of power.

              but, here on Kos, we'll ignore all that and focus on Hillarys tactical maneuvers, get real pissed about them, and split our vote, ensuring that we'll have another GOP pres in 2008 to picked the rest of the SCOTUS judges left after the next 3 years. Yep, no issue is to big for Kos emotion to get in the way of making a point.  

              by Seeds on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 06:34:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of Bleeping COURSE it's political (none / 0)

                It's not a passive sell out of our Constitution like voting for the Patriot Act (although I condemn her for that too).

                It is an ACTIVE sell out by cosponsoring terrible, political wedge generating, meaningless legislation that changes the subject from solving the real problems our countries face.

                She might as well join hands with O'Rascal and come out with a bill making it illegal to say "Happy Holidays."  The only reason she won't is that she has millions of dollars in donations from non-Christians.

                -4.25, -7.28 I'm for the war, but I'm against our troops...

                by gmoney on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 10:20:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't say political, I said tactical (none / 0)

                  meaning in this case, she's taking a position on an issue she expects to be confronted by, so as to diffuse it before it matters.

                  rather than evaluate it as such, you just lumped her in with O'Reilly and presumable would rather see Condi Rice in 2008 than that sell out Hillary.

                  which bring us to the part of my post you apparantly didn't read, which is we lose again in 2008 because you'd rather lose than conceede she might have a tactical point. and then we'll be faced with another 12 year run of GOP presidents picking SCOTUS judges along with the rest of the judicial spots, and be even further away from righting the ship of state than we are now.

                  I don't like the position she's taking. It pisses me off that its even necessary as a tactic. I hate what the right has done to this country that makes it so. But vote for them just to punish Hillary? If we are that fucking stupid we deserve everthing we get.

                  by Seeds on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:14:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  mr. cosette just dropped her. (none / 0)

          he finally saw the light.

          by cosette on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:07:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yep, I agree (4.00 / 2)

          This is ridiculous.  I think I'm ready for a new site:

          www.PleaseDontDraftHillary.com

          BareNaked Pundits!

          by Hlinko on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:32:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Let's dream she's not even my senator in 06 (none / 0)

          She's got competition. He just sort of announced today, I think, on Huffington Post. He's not the sax player, but hell, Id vote for that guy too, to unseat her.

          Check out Hillary's newly announced (and Cindy Sheehan endorsed) competition for the Senate, Jonathan Tasini.

          Yes, come look-see (if you dare) an ACTUAL progressive rival for Hillary's NY Senate seat here.

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:32:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am done defending Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

          have at it.

          和平

          by aitoaster on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:02:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I hardly think (4.00 / 3)

        that Hillary represents our best hope for 08. She won't be able to hide from her support of the war and that will sink her candidacy before it gets traction.

        "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." Edward Abbey

        by acupunk on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:44:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I won't even bother. (4.00 / 5)

        If Hillary is the nominee, I won't vote for her.  Pure and simple.  This is the last straw for me.  She can claim she is a prgressive and point out to her activism when Bill was in Little Rock, but to me it was all bullshit now.  She is a DINO and there are enough sheep out there that will vote for her no matter what.  I only hope the Grens will find a real candidate to run that year, because that is who I will end up voting for if this woman ends up winning the nomination.

        by thefirealarm on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:49:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll probably vote for her (4.00 / 3)

          but she isn't getting a minute of my time or a dime of my money.

          Let the corporations that support her pay for her ads and buy precinct-level canvassers and hire people to run her phone banks.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:03:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Agree (4.00 / 2)

            I will vote for her if she is the candidate. But I will spend not a dime nor a minute helping her get elected. I know that sounds awful but I have to believe in a candidate before I can. I believe in Kerry and Gore both even if they were not the ideal or best candidate. But with Hillary, I am not sure I could ever get excited about her candidacy. Kerry and Gore, despite faltering and making some errors, I genuinely liked and believed they would make good Presidents.

            Hillary is just too conservative and dissing the baes while trying to win over Independents, Republicans and Lieberman / Zell types.

            But I cannot vote for a third party candidate ever since 2000. I cannot take the risk of a Republican running. But I will not be happy either if Hillary is the nominee.

            Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

            by wishingwell on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:35:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I WON'T vote for her (1.00 / 8)

              I WILL WRITE IN NADER BEFORE I VOTE FOR THIS UNPRINCIPLED PIECE OF SHIT.  HAVE YOU NO DECENCY, BEING WILLING TO VOTE FOR SUCH A BRAZEN POLITICAL SLUT?

              -7.88, -6.72. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins."--John Locke IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!

              by caseynm on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:41:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Consequences (none / 1)

                I vote my conscience. That is why I would never, NEVER vote for Nader or write in Nader or any other third party candidate in an election where the Republicans have any chance of winning. The consequences of a Republican presidency are so horrible, that it is hard for me to take seriously anyone who doesn't vote for a Democrat for President. People who took your attitude in 2000 may or may not have meant well, but the consequences of their actions have affected the entire world and it is hard for me to work with Greens who don't recognize the consequences of their actions.

                If Gore were President now, things would be 1000x better. Despite what Greens say, Nader and his supporters do bear some of the blame for what has happened in America since.

                Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

                by mole333 on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 03:49:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's indisputable (none / 1)

                  That Gore would have won but for Nader. The same thing can be said of the asshole media gotcha artists and fabricators, the Supreme Court, Jeb Bush and his Florida cronies, and Al Gore himself. But Nader's lies that the two men were indistinguishable - that is something he can never be forgiven for.

                  I detest Hillary and I would still vote for her over Nader. His self-righteousness is as scary as any Neocon's or Dominionist's. His post-inaugural glee at having put Bush in power still makes me want to wretch.

                  You got no fear of the underdog. That's why you will not survive. - Spoon

                  by brainiacamor on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 05:24:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Don't be foolish... (none / 0)


                There were a lot of Nader voters who would love to take their votes back now, and we'd have a much nicer country if they were able to do so.

                How much is it really worth to you? Would you put Santorum in power to spite Hillary? Would you? This is the same thing that struck down Gore. He wouldn't campaign with Clinton because he didn't respect Clinton as a person anymore. Give me a break. Prop a corpse against Clinton, and it gets elected. Instead, we have Bush, because Gore decided to have principles and not forgive personal slights that weren't even directed at him.

                I hope he sleeps well at night, knowing that scores of people are dead, and the dreams of millions have been dashed so that he could needle one of his fellow allies over a personal failing.

                I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, but I do wish that you would be a little more mindful of the consequences. You are not electing a president for their personality (unless it's someone as clean as Carter, and look how that turned out), you are electing them for their slew of advisors and positions on issues. Hillary will vote in favor of the working class, and will not try to christianize you at gunpoint. If that's the best we can do, then lets at least do that rather than throw a tantrum that we can't get everything we want, and end up with Santorum.

                I'm not saying I'll support her in the primary (though maybe), but I will never again vote for an R for national office, come what may.

                by iwadasn on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 06:37:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  How do you know? (none / 0)

                  If she can't hold on to even this principle which might cost her about 20000 votes nationally, who's to say what political bed she won't jump into when it's convenient?  And that is my point.  Sermonizing at me about the Nader voters doesn't change a thing.  The way Hillary is moving, I am ready to put her in the Joementum category.  On the other hand, he at least seems to have principles, even if they're the wrong ones.  What does Hillary believe in?  She wasn't my first choice before this, but I would have been willing to vote for her as the nominee.  After this?  I can only ask what she stands for--and given what she's done on something as relatively minor as this, how can I believe what she says?

                  I stand by my claim that this is blatant political whoring.  And no, calling her that doesn't make me a bigot or a troll.  Just angry and honest.

                  -7.88, -6.72. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins."--John Locke IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!

                  by caseynm on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 11:13:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  If Hillary is our best hope.. (4.00 / 4)

        we are in a world of hurt. You gotta be kiddin', no way does Clinton even approach my idea of a 3rd rate candidate. THANK GOD THERE ARE MANY VIABLE ALTERNATIVES. Still, she has got to get a message from Democrats that she offers nothing to us, heck, I think she should become a Republican. Yeah, that's it. Her and Richard Holbrooke can join up with the Neocons and wage their savage wars in the name of "keeping the world safe for democracy" while we watch things continue to slide down hill here. Remember Katrina?

        Flag burning? What a disgusting non-starter. This women is out to lunch along with her supporters.

        Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by libertarian socialist on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:02:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  She must be hanging (none / 0)

        out with Joementum again...Hillie, Hillie, whatever are we going to do with you?

        Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

        by wishingwell on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:27:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe not. (4.00 / 3)

      The Supreme Court allowed the state of Virginia to ban cross burning if it was meant to "intimidate," I think; this may be an effort to model a federal law against flag burning along the same lines.

      I doubt the "no burning on federal land" would pass Constitutional muster, tho.  You might as well say, "no speaking on federal land," and I doubt the court would sign off on that.

      But what would the purpose of this law be?  All it would do would be to open up every person who might burn the flag (and how often does that happen, again?  day before never?) up to a criminal investigation into whether they did so to "intimidate" someone - and unlike cross burning, no one's ever burned a flag to intimidate anyone.

      Support Regina Thomas, GA-12

      by Drew on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:12:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I Actually Spoke w/ A. Kennedy (4.00 / 2)


       ...about this.  I was a law student back then, back in the day.  Associate Justice Kennedy spoke at our school.  Afterwards I went up to him and thanked him for being level-headed enough to see this thing as clearly as he did.  Then I gave him a copy of a column I'd done a month or so before, in the student paper, on the decision.  

       I'm sure if this ever comes before the Court again he'll think of me and not want to disappoint.

       BenGoshi
      __________________

      "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

      by BenGoshi on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:35:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think Bill should divorce her... (4.00 / 2)

      so he can get a civil union with Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and she can marry Condi in New York.

      Don't subscribe to your most sarcastic news source.

      by therightlies on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:39:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Flag of Liberty (none / 1)

      "As if our nation is that weak".......

      As if our FLAG is that weak.

      The American flag is only as strong as the liberties it protects.  Its minimum liberty must be: expression by any means that does no harm other than to offend another's OPINION.

      GOD is not DEAD; HE is merely DEAF

      by Roadrage on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:51:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point (4.00 / 3)

        here our admin is busy denying / justifying torture, denying due process...and Hiliary is worried about a hypothetical flag burning that to my knowledge hasn't even happened?  Talk about kissing wing-nut ass.  

        A few years ago, I really liked her.  Over the past year, I've been having more and more doubts about her, and recently, my opinion of her has really plummeted.   Particularly now that we seen some of the dems really step up to the plate and begin challenging the Bush admin.

        Shame on her.

        explain how letting gays marry will directly affect your own heterosexual relationship?

        by bluestatesam on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 10:19:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As I recall (none / 0)

      you're correct. I also recall that Rehnquist wrote in the dissent that burning of the flag was 'the equivelent of a grunt' and therefore not protected by the constitution.

      I'm all for literacy and whatnot, but a 'grunt' is certainly speech. Primative, primal, illiterate not withstanding - it is 'speech' by any comprehension I can muster.

      I thought it was odd because his dissent seemed like little more than a grunt.

      by JoeWPgh on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:03:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A quintissential Clinton performance (4.00 / 6)

    She favors a criminal statute, like the one found unconstitutional several years ago, but opposes a constitutional amendment. Covers all the bases, no?

    John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:55:51 PM PDT

    •  This isn't a "moderate" stance (4.00 / 9)

      it's just a stupid, pandering, faux-pro-military stance.  

      I guess she wants to be the "Go-To Dem" (for Pubs) for when Joementum steps up to the Defense Department.

      by ColoDemo on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:04:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  On the other hand ... (4.00 / 2)

        -- only if the law were to include a provision that it would be revisited after a set period of time to evaluate its effects -- since it would remove this easily exploited issue from debate ... I think it just might be worth it.  Also, I cannot forget that many Union soldiers gave their lives just to carry our flag into battle (I have read accounts of one soldier after another picking up the flag as carrier after carrier is shot down), and honoring that sacrifice seems worth something to me.

        by Grindstone on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:11:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let's honor the sacrifice of Union soldiers by (4.00 / 3)

          banning the displaying of the Confederate flag!

          If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

          by dole4pineapple on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:19:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  this is such a non issue (none / 0)

          I really don't care....where does she stand on universal health care, raising taxes on the wealthy, social programs, Iraq - where she has been non-forthcoming so far - etc.That's what I'm interested in. She raises mucho dinero for the party. Getting so bent out of shape over this is ridiculous IMHO.So she'll get a few southerners to take a second look at her,that's good politics.

          by Glickman on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 11:24:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The basic freedom (none / 1)

            of political expression is not a "non-issue".  It is fundamental.

            by southernblues on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:11:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well ,protest in (none / 0)

              every way, shape and form, just don't burn the flag. You'd only be alienating a whole bunch of people by doing it anyway, and not just rednecks. I'm sure some progressives have mixed feelings about it. What is the point of burning the flag anyway except to say,"Hey, I'm free to burn the flag, what a great country!" If this gets passed, watch flag burning incidents skyrocket, that's what's funny about this too.

              by Glickman on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:46:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am not advocating burning the flag (none / 0)

                I am advocating liberty.  There is a difference.  

                by southernblues on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 03:52:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So you're pro choice in the (none / 0)

                  flag burning issue,I'm pro liberty too, but this is an issue solely for posturing purposes....

                  by Glickman on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 03:55:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No Glickman, you are wrong (none / 1)

                    It is naked pandering to the right.  That it does not impact our every day lives much is hardly the point.  She is openly, smilingly joining hands with the ideologues who invent fake wedge issues to take the electorate's eyes off those issues that DO affect their daily lives.  It is taking her base for granted so severely that she is willing to sell out the First Amendment and trample on her base's values and run toward the center WAY before she has locked up a nomination.

                    I can only smile that it will really turn off the hardcore base when she needs it most: in the early primary season.

                    -4.25, -7.28 I'm for the war, but I'm against our troops...

                    by gmoney on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 10:53:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  three times (none / 0)

                    i gave you the benefit of the doubt in this thread, thinking you would even ONCE listen to what was being communicated to you.

                    ok, neocon, no more: blow me.

                    by Beyond God on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:41:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  that's a good one (none / 0)

                      1. if you'd were beyond god you'd know what you claim is absurd

                      2. if you were beyond god you could articulate your positions with great clarity and language, not resort to absurd mud slinging

                      3. if you were beyond god you could blow yourself

                      4. who cares if you give me any benefits of any doubts - who are you? If you were beyond god you'd be rich and powerful and one would hope beneficent towards us mere mortals - somehow I get the feeling you're neither.....

                      by Glickman on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:05:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  What she fails to realize (4.00 / 3)

        is that she can go all out conservative but unless she changes parties and leaves Bill....the Republicans hate her and they will never vote for her. She could duel every Democrat ala Zell and they still would not vote for her. She has no idea how divisive and angry people get on both sides when talking about her. I think she is only popular among DLC types and huge Clintonistas.

        Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

        by wishingwell on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:38:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's also not an aweful one... (none / 0)


        Face it, she will have her hardest time with some of these wedge issues. If she can neutalize them early, that's good for all of us. It is already illegal to burn a cross to intimidate someone, why not a flag as well? Really, this just seems to be codifying things that are already largely illegal (as mentioned before, it's likely illegal to burn anything on federal property), and if it euthanizes this particular debate, then I say, good riddence.

        If the cost of putting someone in office who will attempt universal healthcare (whose idea was that last time?) and look out for the working class is that we have to pass a law that is totally irrelevant just to shut up some of the more rabid republicans, then that's just the way it is.

        by iwadasn on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 06:50:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What did you expect from (4.00 / 11)

      the Queen of Phony?  It's all crap, all the time with her.  Why is she the "frontrunner?"  The base hates the war, and she's out there as the #1 cheerleader.  Maybe she and Bubba and Lieberman are having a secret love triangle, that would explain a lot of things.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:07:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, Sister Pander-jah (none / 0)

      Please stay in Chappa-qua

      Show of hands... who would join Kucinich's effort to impeach VP Cheney?

      by Mogolori on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:53:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe... (none / 1)

      She can "vote for it before she votes against it" to make her position on the matter even more crystal clear.  No ambiguity here, eh?

      I don't see anyone on the fence being swayed by this desperate attempt at pandering to "moderates".

      I do, however, see a lot of the "base" getting really pissed off at this, myself included.  There's no way in hell I'd back her in 2008.

      I'm so metal I have the unlisted Number of the Beast.

      by MjrMjr on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:30:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (none / 0)

        and NO way are moderate Republicans going to vote for her so that leaves only conservative Dems aka DINOs and someConservative but anti Republican leaning  Independents. And some Independents will not go for her because of her pro war stance.  But I cannot see Progressives or Moderate Democrats going for her. She is too conservative for some moderate Democrats I know.

        Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

        by wishingwell on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:43:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Could it be? (none / 0)

      she hopes to diffuse the politcal momentum of the issue she opposes by supporting it in a way that is harmless?

      let her oponent outflank her to the right. make them stand up and say "we should ammend the constitution to eliminate this right!"

      Hillary can be accused of a lot of things. Being tactically stupid is not one of them.

      by Seeds on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:20:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Could it be? (none / 1)

      she hopes to diffuse the politcal momentum of the issue she opposes by supporting it in a way that is harmless?

      let her oponent outflank her to the right. make them stand up and say "we should ammend the constitution to eliminate this right!"

      Hillary can be accused of a lot of things. Being tactically stupid is not one of them.

      by Seeds on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:20:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The ego of the average redneck (4.00 / 2)

    is very weak indeed.  As is his grasp of law, judicial procedure, spelling, patriotism and good beer.

    "You can't fight city hall. But you can crap on the steps and run away." - Alexei Sayle

    by Magnus Greel on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:55:55 PM PDT

  •  As I Said on Another Thread... (none / 1)

    ...about this, YAWN.  

    I just can't get worked up about this issue.  So few people care about it one way or another.  Ann Arbor Blue pointed out that the Supreme Court has already ruled, in general, that it's protected speech.  So they come up with some meaningless measure that bans bonfires on federal property, including those with flags.  I don't see many people caring about it one way or another, unless they already hate Hillary and cite this as an example of how she's a fascist.  But voters without a Hillary hatred?  I'll bet they have the same reaction I had, a yawn.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by DHinMI on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:56:40 PM PDT

    •  I don't hate Hillary (4.00 / 13)

      But her finger-to-the wind approach to everything from the Iraq war to flag burning has long since gotten old. Today's move comes straight out of the Dick Morris playbook from 10 years ago.

      John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:58:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Think... (4.00 / 2)

        ...we're having the same general reaction.  I agree with you on her rationale.  And that makes me yawn.  Hard to get pissed at her for it, but it sure doesn't do much to get me excited about her as a leader or a candidate.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by DHinMI on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:04:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Think.... (4.00 / 3)

          ...a lot of us here have the same views about her.  No way would we vote for her in the primary, but against any republican, for the good of the country we'd support her in the general.

          by Sam Loomis on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:15:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A friend of mine (none / 0)

          HAND delivered this idea for a bill to her on one of his trips to DC 2 yrs. ago.  

             Proposal:  Submit a bill to the House and Senate containing the following.

          1.    All United States of America flags must be manufactured in the United States of America.
          2.    All merchandise sold in the United States of America that depicts or displays the flag of the United States of America must be manufactured in the United States of America.
          3.    All merchandise sold in the United States of America that depicts or displays any or all of the following must be manufactured in the United States of America.
          (a).  The phrase - United States of America
          (b).  The acronym - USA
          (c).  The word - America

          She thought it was something she needed to look into - said she'd get one of her aids to call him back - never happened.  

          Maybe it's just me, but I find it much more offensive to find an American Flag made overseas by some underpaid child than some schmuck trying to make a point and burning the Flag.

          "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

          by fugwb on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 04:54:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Keep it up, Hill.... (none / 0)

        She seems to keep forgetting there's a primary before the general, and one would hope whichever non-DLC favorite that becomes her strongest competitor learned important lessons from Dean's campaign.

        One almost wonders if Biden will put his hat in the wring just to play Gephardt this time around.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:41:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah (none / 0)

           An announcer from back stage:( playing the part of Joe Lieberman is Hillary Clinton ) and then
          ( playing the part of Dick Gephardt is Joe Biden)

          Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

          by wishingwell on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:47:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  For me however, this may just be the straw. (4.00 / 3)

      I am sick of watching our rights in the country picked away at in the name of patriotism.

      National ID - Pick
      Library Searches - Pick
      Free Speech Zones - Pick
      Closed "public" Political Events - Pick

      Its not that big a deal, who cares, is is not like they are arresting people...oh wait, they are.

      McCain and Lobbyists; McCain on NAFTA

      by ETinKC on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:04:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please (none / 0)

        It's already established that the Supreme Court has basically defanged anything about flag burning, so anything that won't get overturned will be meaningless.  This is hardly like the extremes of the Patriot Act.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by DHinMI on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:06:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (4.00 / 3)

          Yes, with Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, we can certainly trust them to protect our rights.  So who cares if the Democrats are willing to trade our rights in for a few extra votes?

          Hey, so now the Democratic line is that we can rely on the Bush-packed court to protect our rights?  Wonderful.  We're all heading for Gitmo now!

          --Come to Denver in 2008! www.recreate68.org

          by COBear on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:15:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I actually agree with you about this (none / 1)

          I am more commenting on the straw for any support I might have felt for Clinton as our VP.  And if she is proposing it only because she knows it is going to get struck down, then how will she answer the question on whether she supports a constitutional amendment on the issue (question is rhetorical).

          However, because this gets so many moderate voters attention, i do think that it is important to protect someones right to burn the flag.  I have had many heated discussions about this with liberal friends who done see a problem with banning it.  However, in most cases I was able to get them to see exactly why it is a problem and why it is necessary to protect that right, even if you find it personally abhorrent.  Convince someone of that and other free speech issue become easier.

          McCain and Lobbyists; McCain on NAFTA

          by ETinKC on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:20:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's politics, not law (none / 0)

          None of the work she does on video games or this nonsense is about making law, it's about positioning and getting votes. My guess is she will tie it to cross burning in a campaign speech and try and push it as a 'positive' vision of America, a place where those things don't happen.

          HRC is a one term Senator in a time of war. Having five minutes for this nonsense is a joke. Is she trying to set up a means to attack Feingold in a primary with this nonsense? I voted for HRC in her first Senate election and have defended her views in general ever since but this strikes me as pure politics.

          John McCain

          by joejoejoe on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:33:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yup, That's All It Is (4.00 / 2)

            My point above to DTM is that in terms of politics it leaves me cold.  This isn't serious public policy, and because it's so narrow it's essentially, in a legal and policy sense, meaningless.  Meaningless policy, craven and shallow politics...hence, my yawn.  

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by DHinMI on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:53:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  2008 (none / 0)

              We agree but it makes it awful hard for good Democrats to defend HRC when she is pulling stunts like this. The first amendment shouldn't be campaign fodder. There is no historal analogy between flag burning and cross burning. One was a Klan staple associated with violence and the other is a protest against the government. Who exactly is it intimidating when you burn a flag?

              John McCain

              by joejoejoe on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:15:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yawn? (4.00 / 4)

      What happens when the law gets passed and somebody rots in jail for years while the appeal winds its way to the Supreme Court?

      by GW Chimpzilla on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:14:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's the whole point!.... (4.00 / 4)

      As least for me.

      The fact that while:

      -our soldiers are dying (officially in the thousands now) in an illegal war,

      -Al Qaida grows in strength and influence,

      -The poor are gettin poorer and the ultra rich are gettin ultra-richer,

      -Global warming threatens to cause global chaos,

      -The middle class is shrinking and the working class is suffering,

      -An avian flu pandemic is could kill millions of Americans,

      Hillary is doing absoulutley meaningless and foolish crap like this anti-flag legislation and, of course, working with her buddies Rick Santorum and Joe Lieberman to get congress to appropriate $90M to study the effects of video games on teenagers ($90M could buy a lot of body armor for our soldiers and Marines in Iraq!)

      Either she is royally cynical or commonly stupid! Either way she's just flipping us all the bird with this nonsense. It's a damned shame. I expect it from Republicans but not from Democrats.

      ....Listen to Ded Prez....

      by Manix on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:08:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  BTW....here's a link to... (none / 0)

        the video game boondoggle:

        GameSpot Article

        ----------------------------------------------
        Although there are far more outspoken politicians when it comes to regulating game content inappropriate for children, this is not the first time Clinton has looked into the issue. On her official Web site, Clinton lists "fighting the culture of sex and violence in the media" as part of her platform, and in March, she joined with Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Rick Santorum (R-PA) to cosponsor legislation seeking $90 million over five years for research into how viewing different types of media (television, video games, and the Internet in particular) affects children's development.
        ---------------------------------------------

        Most people I tell about this are completely incredulous so.....I included the link....

        ....Listen to Ded Prez....

        by Manix on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:15:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hyperbole Alert! (none / 0)

        OK, at this point I have to call bullshit.  Is she saying spend the $90 million on things other than body armor?  No, iirc, she's been one of the numerous Dems highly critical of the administration for not getting enough body armor.  

        The revolution will not be televised,