Bill introduced by Congress proposing up to a year in jail for flag-burners

[philosslayer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

[JHan]

1. Yeah

[frazzled]

2. Where are all these flag burners they want to protect us from?

I haven't seen them around since 1967. Did I miss something?

Don't they have better things to think about?

[Uben]

3. How about life in prison...

...for Russian collaborators? Then, let's thoroughly investigate Trump's ties to Russia. Seeing that bastard in jail would sure make my day.

[MADem]

4. Let's not be stupid about that bill. That bill was GENIUS.

And let's not use "right wing framing" to try to make that bill more than what it was, or the OPPOSITE of what it was designed to do.


In 2005, the GOP wanted a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that made flag burning a crime. They were ready to go to town on it.

That bill was like throwing a bone to a rabid dog so you could get the baby in the stroller safely into the house.

If you look at the bill, it's only applicable to FEDERAL PROPERTY, where setting fires is ILLEGAL anyway. This is why we don't see campfires at the Million Man March, for example.

It's basically a bill that says "You can't burn this particular item on federal land, never mind that you can't burn anything save a cigarette on federal land, anyway."

It gave the GOP mouth breathers something they could vote on.

It made absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in any actual practice. Further, it did not PASS, so no harm, no foul, but wingnuts could point to their "vote" like it mattered.

A bill that doesn't change anything (Look at the shiny object over HERE!!!) is infinitely preferable to a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, to my mind.

YMMV.

FWIW, the fact that the bill was introduced by, among others, Hillary Clinton, was purposeful. Some people don't like triangulation. If it's all that can be done to get a wingnut off your ass, I am all for it.

But I did see what you did there (or tried to do), and it didn't impress me one bit.

Do tell me I'm mistaken as to your motives.

[TubbersUK]

11. I might be misreading

but, from the link, it does seem to be broader in scope than just activities on federal land.

Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.[4]

[Nancyswidower]

18. It was..MADem knows it....but it failed anyways.

[MADem]

21. Not really--see post 20.

It prohibited things that are illegal anyway. Inciting riots has always has been illegal. So's setting fires. Do these things on federal land, or with a federally owned flag, though, and you've got trouble.

Burn your own flag? Or steal your neighbor's and burn it? Not such a big deal. You might get some local wrath, but you won't do a year in jail.

[MADem]

20. You can't "incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace" ANYWAY.

Last edited Tue Nov 29, 2016, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

With or without a flag. It's illegal to so do. On edit--the penalty is up to FIVE years in the kink--not a paltry one year:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2101

And it's against the law to steal. Always has been. Doesn't matter if it's a flag or a park ranger's hat.

There's nothing in this 'law' that wasn't prohibited already. The only difference was the proposed punishment, IF your motives could be determined, IF you stole a flag belonging to the federal government, and/or IF you did this on government land.

If you steal a flag from a flagpole in front of the 7-11, though, for the purposes of calmly expressing your dissatisfaction with the government in an orderly way at a protest that has a permit and the purpose is clearly elucidated, you wouldn't be subject to a year in jail. You might get charged with misdemeanor theft at the local level, maybe setting a fire without a permit, but you wouldn't do a year in the klink. You need to steal a flag that belongs to the US government or is on government land to get the one year in jail prize.

Of course, the bill didn't pass so it doesn't matter. It's all moot, and it distracted the GOP from having a taste for this kind of punitive horseshit over symbolic actions.

[JHan]

12. Yup. I could only manage a "yeah" for them..

Maybe one day some folks with understand the cut and thrust of legislative politics.

[Nancyswidower]

5. And....It was fully cosponsored by...wait for it...

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as original co-sponsor. The other co-sponsors included Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.)....
this was 2005....

Shall we go THERE,,on purpose?

[MADem]

6. Please see my discussion immediately upthread. This was a "Cut 'em off at the pass" bill. nt

[Nancyswidower]

13. I saw your post 3 minutes before mine.....irrelavant to the OP....

This wasn't 11th dimensional chess as has been floated back in the day of POTUS Obama's activities....this was 4yrs after 911...this was entirely to bolster Patriotic cred deals....she was my Senator at the time.... it wasn't a master plan....it was a reelection plan.

You say "If you look at the bill, it's only applicable to FEDERAL PROPERTY, where setting fires is ILLEGAL anyway. This is why we don't see campfires at the Million Man March, for example. "

Maybe MADem you should read that Bill because you statement is false....not 'till SS700(d&e) does it address Federal property. Link provided..
https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/1911/text

CRS found differently...."Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.."

[NYC Liberal]

7. It was a bill that didn't do anything in order to stave off a Constitutonal amendment.

I'm glad Democrats cosponsored that bill.

[Nancyswidower]

16. I never made a cliam it was to stave off anything...I actually posted otherwise.

MADem made the claim it was to "stave off" an Amendment..I posted the Senate version of the Bill Hillary cosponsored.
I agree with you....I'm glad Dems on both sides of the Capital cosponsored....

[MADem]

19. It WAS. Voted UP in the House in 2005, voted down in the Senate in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration_Amendment

[Nancyswidower]

23. Totally different deal than what the OP linked to or that I replied to...

You are doing a bait and switch....don't do that with me....won't go well because I'll link the Bill the OP provided....like this....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

But you know they are different deals.....shall we play some more? Probably not a great idea for you to try...your original post..#4..was about the Bill....it was inaccurate in content and NOW you are switching to an Amendment deal that the OP NEVER referred to.
You said and I quote...."If you look at the bill, it's only applicable to FEDERAL PROPERTY, where setting fires is ILLEGAL anyway. This is why we don't see campfires at the Million Man March, for example.

It's basically a bill that says "You can't burn this particular item on federal land, never mind that you can't burn anything save a cigarette on federal land, anyway."

You were and are WRONG.

[MADem]

24. No--you're not paying attention. The OP / your link is to the BILL. MY LINK is to the proposed

AMENDMENT. Which was voted on IN THE HOUSE in 05 and in the Senate in 06.

The BILL was designed to take the heat off the AMENDMENT. It gave the GOP diehards something to "vote for."

It's not rocket science. It's quite straightforward.

And I'm not wrong. I remember this particular issue very well as I was in DC for part of it.

[Nancyswidower]

27. Nice try.....but in post 4....your post, you mistate what was in the Bill...

I'll quote you AGAIN....."If you look at the bill, it's only applicable to FEDERAL PROPERTY, where setting fires is ILLEGAL anyway. This is why we don't see campfires at the Million Man March, for example.
It's basically a bill that says "You can't burn this particular item on federal land, never mind that you can't burn anything save a cigarette on federal land, anyway."

Didn't exist in the Bill you referenced....

No shit the Bill and Amendment are different...you say this now...."The BILL was designed to take the heat off the AMENDMENT. It gave the GOP diehards something to "vote for."....Really as Dems couldn't cosponsor fast enough .....not my 1st go 'round sparky
You can't back that claim

[MADem]

28. Wah wah wah --the federal penalty for inciting a riot is five years, not one.

This bill lets rioters off easy if they're burning a flag at the same time.


This was a "No consequences" bill--that was my point.

But you go on and miss that point, and nitpick, if it makes you feel better.

And clearly, it does.

You have a nice day--maybe one day you'll appreciate my point, but i can't be bothered arguing with someone who delights in being rude, aggressive and deliberately obtuse--way to go!

BTW, my name is not "sparky." Should I invent a snarky nickname for you in return? Hmmm?

Naaah, that wouldn't be civil.

[MADem]

25. The bill and the amendment are two different things.

If not for the amendment, the bill would never have been written.

[elehhhhna]

8. Send them an ashed up flag anonymously

[TheFrenchRazor]

9. wait, is it the '90s again? what a bunch of grand-standing BS. nt

[mainer]

10. But stealing victims' money with a fake Trump U gets you no time

Interesting new standards our country has.

[baldguy]

15. So ... can we still burn Confederate flags?

[Nancyswidower]

17. You can burn any flag.....this failed deal was from '05...

And Dumpster can't change that ....I wouldn't burn any flag but that's me..as a Veteran...seems counter intuitive.

[Wounded Bear]

22. They should attach a rider...

exactly the same punishment for flying or displaying any flag associated with actual rebellion and secession from the US.

[unblock]

26. maybe we're making progress. it's no longer 1950; more like 1988...?