Hillary sponsored a Senate bill for a $100,000 fine and one year in jail for FLAG BURNING

[Cheese Sandwich]

I'm surprised to learn Democrats support that. Seems nutty to me. Is that even constitutional?

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Bennett. The law would have outlawed flag burning, and called for a punishment of one year in jail and a fine of $100,000.

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

[bettyellen]

1. context?

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. Authoritarian jingoistic pandering?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

18. Perfect answer.

[Hortensis]

22. Yes and no to "jingoistic pandering."

HRC is a moderate liberal, and this issue split the Democratic Party. When she cosponsored this bill it was supported by a full half of Democrats in Congress and many millions of citizens. The rest of her colleagues farther to the left and many millions of liberals like me pilloried her for it. She was also intensely criticized from the right, where the feeling was that only one year in prison was far too lenient -- as to be expected from bleeding heart liberals.

Importantly, a major reason for this bill was to head off, let some of the air out of, a national wave of support for a constitutional amendment to make flag burning a crime. Hillary specifically opposed a constitutional amendment. As it is, the GOP bill to pursue amendment came very close to passing.

Btw, this tactic of using legislation to deflate right-wing attempts to shift power away from the electorate by making the Constitution a conservative first and last word on many issues has been used a number of times.

[Kentonio]

41. Sounds like the same bullshit argument used to justify DOMA.

[Hortensis]

50. As in we don't get to screw "them" and do

whatever we want? If so, yes. More people wanted flag burning made illegal than not. That's reality, and this is a democracy. So far the good guys won on this, but I am afraid by default.

Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders just up and decided that Republicans wouldn't get upset about flag burning anymore, so their media stopped reporting on it and they stopped agitating about it, so kids stopped burning flags to get attention. You won't like the reason. They wanted to get Citizens United passed claiming money as free speech so they couldn't be seen arguing against free speech at the same time for others. At some time, though, it'll be useful for them to start yammering about flag burning again, so they will. Welcome to the world.

Oh, yes, and I am going to vote for a Democrat who was willing to allow kids in jail for burning flags, though at least not enthusiastic, because she is easily, several times over, the best of the pack, and we agree far more often than we disagree.

[Kentonio]

54. More people supporting something has never been enough to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Just like we were not going to see a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage either. It's just a weak way to justify poor voting and support.

[Hortensis]

55. Stop pretending that other people don't matter.

Not caring what others want even if they're 4/5 of the population is one thing. You don't have to care about the wishes and rights and beliefs of others.

However, insisting that our leaders can and should just serve YOUR ideology and political whims and refuse to represent everyone else is not just silly but in my opinion highly unprincipled. You can want a totalitarian government based on your ideology all you want, but you cannot have it. You are stuck with democracy. People like me will make sure of that.

[Kentonio]

56. 4/5th of the population were not going to support a constitutional amendment on flag burning

So you can get rid of that straw man right now.

[Hortensis]

58. I'm talking about all the silly intolerant extremism spouted here.

Extreme righteousness is a primary characteristic of people on both the far right and the far left. In the opinion of most it is completely unwarranted. And the delusion common to both groups that their views are shared by a majority of the people is just that - delusional. Also that only the views of those people who agree with them are valid.

[Kentonio]

60. What does any of this have to do with Hillary showing appalling judgement

And then making up bad excuses to try and justify it?

[Warren DeMontague]

76. No, it's not reality. The bill of rights was put there to protect citizens against both government

And the authoritatian whims of the majority.

It was hard baked right into the fabric of our government itself, and the first amendment was put first for a reason.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. And yet, The bar to actually amend the Constitution is pretty fuckin' high.

Imaginary "groundswells of support" notwithstanding, they never would have pulled it off.

This legislation was pure pandering. Shameless. And it displays a disregard for the first amendment that progressives should have a deep discomfort with.

[Hortensis]

67. Quite possibly it would have failed. But that's not the point.

Or the whole point. The amendment drama would for instance distract national attention as their pockets continued to be picked by the wealthy. It would have also sucked up much of the national energy that should have been spent focused on other issues. People can only get excited about and care about so much at one time. You really did not want an entire year devoted to watching the amendment process.

And if it failed, the disappointment would merely have revved up the Republican base for yet more outrage, to be continued ad nauseum.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Then why didn't they do it?

Doing it or not doing it had diddly squat to do with Hillary's pandering legislation.

[Hortensis]

75. Large part because Dems spiked their amendment gun

By introducing that bill. Only the most viciously ardent supporters still wanted an amendment. Other reasons i no longer remember no doubt, nothing is ever simple in these big stakes games.

As I said, this damage-control and support-diverting technique is pretty standard tool.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Bullshit. The whole "flag burning" nonsense never had any real traction to begin with.

It was typical Karl Rove trying to get democrats to reflexively panic and respond stupidly, and HRC took the bait.

"Kids" weren't even burning flags, IIRC. It was more "values voter" beltway bullshit completely disassociated from what was actually going on in the country, and by the 2006 election the GOP paid.

[timmymoff]

66. A moderate liberal?

WTF kind of spin is that? You don't just get to make up shit. Moderate liberal = a freakin moderate. Own it stop spinning like a damn top. Her supporters are has bad as her with the constant triangulation.

[Hortensis]

68. Timmy, you don't get to just make up stuff.

Hillary Clinton has a 40 year and more record that has been examined to the most minute detail. All honest experts consider her a moderate liberal. On some issues she trends toward the middle, not conservative but very middle, and on most social issues she is strongly liberal; when they assess her as a moderate liberal, that is an overall rating.

This is the information age. Imo, there really is no excuse for not knowing who our presidential candidates are.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. "all honest experts" - you realize those are 3 completely subjective words?

I suppose the ones who don't either aren't "honest" or aren't "experts", or both.

[timmymoff]

82. Moderate liberal a term made up to make moderate smell better

[Warren DeMontague]

5. The Context is, it was between 2002-2006, the era she apparently gets a pass for.

You know, IWR, Flag Burning, "Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman".

Heaven forfend a government official should be held responsible for their actual record in governing.

[senz]

16. She thought she'd be running for president and would need to impress conservatives.

[reddread]

51. about the 6th roll out of the flag burning menace

which helped keep us focused during elections seasons.

the mark of scum.

[neverforget]

2. The compromise with the Republicans instead of a

Flag Amendment.

[Ilsa]

42. Good grief. We

don't need a law, we don't need an amendment. The whole idea of losing a year of one's life and $100k shows how out of touch most politicians are. I've tried to stay out of the SHC vs SBS debates, but this riles me, and I've never burned a flag.

[HassleCat]

4. So, she's soft on crime!

Flag burners should get the death penalty. Because 'Murca!

Actually, it is not constitutional, and any legislator who supports it is not a progressive. Or maybe they're progressives with frozen brains. Maybe pragmatic progressives who get things done. Yeah, that one.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. NY TIMES: SENATOR CLINTON IN PANDER MODE

Anyone who actually gives a shit about the 1st Amendment should be very concerned about this sort of shit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html

[Cheese Sandwich]

14. Triangulation in a nutshell

Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag. Her supporters would characterize this as an attempt to find a middle way between those who believe that flag-burning is constitutionally protected free speech and those who want to ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways.

[passiveporcupine]

20. No surprise here

This is what I expect from conservatives, and in many ways she is still a conservative.

[BernieforPres2016]

7. Critical legislation, because the American flag has been under assault from flag burners

That issue is right up there with the War on Christmas and the critical issue, which I run into every time I go to a public restroom, as to who can legally go in which restroom.

[beam me up scottie]

8. I remember arguing about that with right wingers.

They sounded just like Archie Bunker, it was bizarre.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. Do we know if she has evolved?

Because, if not, it would be fun to hear from her fans how that is the bestest law ever attempted.

And if she evolved...

[jack_krass]

45. Opinion surveying in progress, we'll get back to you on that soon... /The Clinton camp

[beam me up scottie]

64. Depends who's asking, what day it is, what polls indicate, etc.

I too would love to hear from them.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Some people get conservative in their old age, others more liberal.

Pretty fucking obvious which way our Democratic candidates are headed, innit.

[Cheese Sandwich]

10. She's headed in every possible direction at the same time?

Something like that.

You can either know her position or her direction but not both at the same time.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. She went... thataway.

Picture some old cowboy (Festis), with his arms tied in knots, trying to point to all four points of the compass as well as up and down. All at the same time.

[Cheese Sandwich]

12. weathervane.gif

[XemaSab]

13. It's the third leg of the triangulation "stool"

Stake out a center-left position, dissociate yourself from occupiers and BLM activists, and take a few strategic right-wing positions to try to capture "independents."

Here's an up-close look at the process:

[Cheese Sandwich]

17. LOLs gross

but accurate!

[artislife]

37. That is one hell of a straddle. nt

[MisterP]

15. the bootlickers on DU called it "inoculation" against the inevitable GOP attacks

if they call her unpatriotic, she can point to this nonsense that the Jehovah's Witnesses got tarred and feathered by howling mobs for

[AzDar]

19. She's ABSURD.

[Cheese Sandwich]

28. I'm surprised nobody has tried to defend this for Hillary

Usually they will at least offer some deflections and red herrings. They have nothing on this apparently.

[SusanCalvin]

90. Probably because it's indefensible. nt

[Major Hogwash]

23. Why does she hate the Chinese?

99% of the flags are made in China these days, so why wouldn't she want them to make more after the plague of flag burning takes place?

Whatta think, is it because she maybe took money for speaking at a Chinese bank?

[Zira]

24. Her and her husband also did a bill in Arkansas to protect the Confederate flag.

[Cheese Sandwich]

25. Wait what? If that's real we should be posting that on the internet 24 hours a day

[Zira]

27. removed.

[Zira]

29. No, I had it wrong. They put a star to commemorate the Confederate flag, in the Arkansas flag.

Here, left wing instead of rw link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/bill-clinton-arkansas-confederate_n_7638542.html

[Cheese Sandwich]

30. still bad. Thanks for checking.

[Art_from_Ark]

33. The star was added in the 1920s

Clinton just signed a bill to acknowledge one of the stars as representing the Confederacy (one article I read said it was the star above the state's name, although I haven't found anything else since then to confirm that). At any rate, the other 3 stars in the middle of the flag represent France, Spain, and the United States (that is, countries that controlled Arkansas at one time or another).

[Fumesucker]

38. Here's the bill

[Art_from_Ark]

40. Kind of a weird bill

It sounds like they were designing a new flag, but the flag the bill is describing had existed in that form since the 1920s. Heck, it flew over my schools ever since I started elementary school in the '60s. And I learned in elementary school (Arkansas History class) about the meaning of the 25 smaller stars, and the significance of the diamond shape. But that bill is wrong in claiming that Arkansas and Michigan entered the Union on the same day-- Michigan did not enter until 1837.

Here is a coin that was issued to commemorate Arkansas's centennial in 1936 (though it's dated 1939) which shows part of the state flag. Note that the arrangement of the 4 large stars is precisely as described in the 1987 bill.

[Zira]

65. WTH! the top star is for the Confederacy per the article.

Which is ultimately what all this is about. You don't put stars for countries that you replaced an no longer belong to. This is all about getting a confederate star up there.

[Art_from_Ark]

86. Um, that star was added to the Arkansas state flag in the 1920s

Clinton did NOT add it-- it was already there. It was there when I was a kid. Hell, it was there when my mom was a kid.

[Zira]

87. I'm going off the article posted. Read what it says in the sentence above the stuff outlined in red.

Why did they need to state that the star is specifically to acknowlege the confederacy? I don't care when it was added. Get rid of it.

[Art_from_Ark]

91. The article sounds bogus to me

I hung around with some of the most liberal people in Arkansas in the '80s, including students and professors at the state's largest university, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. My name is on the "Walk of Fame" sidewalk in front of Ole Main (closer to Carnall Hall, actually) at the university. I subscribed to the state's most liberal newspaper at the time, the Arkansas Gazette. I have explained why I think the article is bogus in other posts.

[Zira]

92. I'll take your word. I've never been to Arkansas so have no idea otherwise.

[Art_from_Ark]

43. The more I think of it, the more I think something is not quite right here

Not only does it appear that they are adopting a flag that had already been the state flag for decades before that, but there is that glaring error about Arkansas and Michigan being admitted to the Union on the same day.

Arkansas celebrated its sesquicentennial (150th anniversary) in 1986, and as an Arkansas resident at the time, I was well aware of it. The state's educational television network, AETN, was running its version of the 1976 Bicentennial Minutes, which recounted pages from the state's past. And Bill Clinton was presiding over the state's sesquicentennial festivities. So he, of all people, should have known that Arkansas was sharing its sesquicentennial year not with Michigan, but with Texas! Since this document was supposedly signed in March 1987, the memories of the sesquicentennial should still have been fresh in mind.

[Tanuki]

49. Still wrong.They did not put that star there. WJC signed a bill from the legislature that explained

the meaning of the elements of the existing flag's design. You should just delete this dishonest mess.

[northernsouthern]

26. It is not that big a fine.

Just an 8 minute speech will pay for it. I don't see the issue here.



But in all honesty, that is pretty messed up, I guess she was still in her patriot GW mode.

[chascarrillo]

31. Just amazing. -nt-

[JDPriestly]

32. K&R. This actually happened. It was all over the news. That's when I knew I would never vote for

her.

Never burned a flag. Never wanted to burn a flag. Never even thought about it.

But a resolution against flag-burning is such a pandering stupidity. What can I say?

I just thought that says everything I ever want to know about Hillary. Such a dumb law.

[merrily]

35. Not only dumb, JD, but unconstitutional. The SCOTUS had already held that flag burning was speech

protected by the First Amendment. So, ponder: in order to pander to the right, she attempted, two years in a row, to pass an unconstitutional law.

On the "bright" side, her inability to get substantive bills that she had written passed into law worked in favor of the Constitution both times she tried.

[merrily]

34. TWO bills, TWO years in a row. The reply you will get is that she did so to prevent a

constitutional amendment. This is the same excuse her husband used for DOMA. It was bs when he used the excuse; it was bs when she backed him on it; and it was bs when Hillary used it for her unconstitutional flag bills.

The amendment was red meat the Republicans threw to their base every session. It was never going to pass both houses and be signed into law, let alone get ratified. Besides, passing a clearly unconstitutional bill is not the way anyone should try to prevent a Constitutional amendment.

Bill Clinton signed DOMA for political reasons. Hillary went for the flag bills for political reasons. Other Democrats had her back on the constitutional amendment myth. but I hope we all understand that kind of thing is standard operating procedure in Washington, D.C. these days.

See links in this post, among many others. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=870794

[Cheese Sandwich]

62. That's the whole story of the modern Democratic Party in a nutshell

We have to do this horrible thing to prevent the Republicans from doing a worse horrible thing.

With a few exceptions.

[merrily]

63. Emphasis on "story" nt

[onenote]

81. The flag amendment came within one vote of getting the necessary 2/3 in the Senate in 2006.

You may not like the fact that the legislation was intended solely (and successfully) to give certain members cover to oppose the Constitutional amendment, but that doesn't make it any less a fact.

By the way, can you link to the second "flag protection" bill that Clinton sponsored?

[onenote]

83. People sure have short memories

I know a lot of folks here pooh-pooh the notion that the flag protection bill the Clinton co-sponsored was part of a coordinated strategy to defeat a Constitutional flag burning amendment, but that is in fact the reality.

Some history:
Legislation purporting to ban flag burning was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1989, setting the stage for repeated attempts by Republicans to amend the Constitution. The House passed flag amendments to the Constitution by more than the required 2/3 margin in every Congress from 104th (1995) to the 109th (2006). Twice (1995 and 2000) the Senate came within 4 votes of also providing the required 2/3 vote of approval.

Heading into 2005 and 2006, the proponents of a flag burning amendment to the Constitution were very optimistic about their chances for getting to the necessary 2/3 vote in the Senate. A resolution to amend the Constitution was introduced in January 2005. In response, an unlikely ally of the anti-amendment forces, Utah Republican Senator Bennett, introduced legislation to protect the flag in April (S.1370). The idea was to provide cover for those opposed to the constitutional amendment. In July 2005, shortly after the House voted in favor of the Constitutional amendment by more than the required 2/3 margin, four Democrats signed up as co-sponsors of the Bennett legislation: Byrd, Carper, Conrad, and Dorgan. The bill, as expected, was buried by the Republican majority -- it did not even get a hearing.

With a vote on the Constitutional amendment approved by the House still looming in the fall, Bennett introduced a second bill (S. 1911) in October 2005, this time with Clinton as a fig leaf co-sponsor. After it became clear that the Senate was going to vote on the House-passed Constitutional amendment in June 2006, additional Democrats signed on as sponsors: Carper, Boxer, and Pryor. That bill also, as expected, died without even a hearing, as was intended by its sponsors. However, the very fact that the legislation addressing flag desecration had been introduced gave the sponsors the political cover to vote against the House-passed Constitutional amendment in June 2006. The vote on the amendment was 66-34: one vote shy of the necessary 2/3. Every one of the co-sponsors of the two Bennett bills: Clinton, Boxer, Carper, Conrad, Pryor, Byrd, Dorgan and Bennett voted no on the amendment; had even one of them defected, the amendment would have gone to the states for almost certain ratification.

There is no doubt that signing onto the Bennett bills was an act of self-interest and/or self-preservation by several of the Democrats -- Carper, Clinton, Conrad and Byrd were all up for re-election in 2006. But the reality is that no one expected or intended the legislation they were supporting to go anywhere. Indeed, they knew for a fact it wouldn't go anywhere because the Republican majority would never allow a mere piece of legislation to pass in lieu of their desired Constitutional amendment. By having a group of Democrats and a lead Republican on that legislation, it became possible to kill the Constitutional amendment without any chance of harm befalling citizens' first amendment rights.

I don't call that pandering. I call it smart legislative strategy.

[artislife]

36. I remember that.

My brother, a real lefty wanted to burn a flag in her honor.

I think the fact that we can burn our flag is one of the greatest things about our country.

Oh course, that right will disappear like the other rights that have disappeared.

[jfern]

39. Meanwhile her husband's Treasury secretary Rubin lied to investors during the financial crisis

And got of scott free even after being the Financial Crisis Commission told the Department of Justice that he should be investigated.

http://fortune.com/2016/03/13/robert-rubin-financial-crisis-commission-justice-department/

No to the Clinton Wall Street cronies!

[Warren DeMontague]

48. The authoritarian mindset: Smoke a joint, burn a flag, buy a dildo, go to prison.

Rip off billions and crash the economy, get a taxpayer funded bailout.

[restorefreedom]

44. authoritarian fascists tend to act that way

its just an adorable quirk of theirs

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Given the open contempt some people on our "side" regularly display for the 1st Amendment

Really im surprised some people here arent still pushing this sort of shit.

[Cheese Sandwich]

61. Maybe they're just waiting for right moment

[Logical]

52. She is basically a republican on many topics. Nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

53. Hillary wanted to outlaw freedom of speech?

Doesn't seem very progressive
or democratic to criminalize free speech?

It looks very authoritarian,
conservative pandering at
the very least.

[pinebox]

57. But it's Hillary! So who cares!

No matter what, she can never do any wrong and all this stuff is just lies and Bernie feeding Ovaltine to Ralphie!

[EndElectoral]

59. This is the Onion isn't it?

[vintx]

69. LOL, sounds about right

[Bluenorthwest]

70. She sponsored flag burning bills twice, not once but twice.

It was during the Shock and Awe era.

[onenote]

74. Link?

I think you are mistaken. While Bennett (R-UT) introduced two "flag protection" bills in 2005 (S. 1370 in July 2005 and S. 1911 in October 2005), Clinton only was a co-sponsor of the latter bill. The July bill's co-sponsors were Byrd, Conrad, Dorgan and Carper. The other co-sponsors of the October bill were Boxer, Carper and Pryor.

[bvf]

71. Resumé padding.

Gotta mix it up a bit. Can't build your legislative chops just by slapping new names on shit.

[berniepdx420]

77. Holy Crap !! She is not a Liberal and certainly not a Progressive

[Merryland]

78. Oh man, has she ever been on the RIGHT side of an issue?

I can't take much more learning about this vapid phony.

[guillaumeb]

80. Is pandering a principle? eom

[ibegurpard]

84. Is anyone actually surprised by this?

It's one of MANY reasons she disgusts me and it's been common knowledge for years.

[SusanCalvin]

94. I'm afraid I actually was. Live and learn.

The corporatism is bad enough....

[frylock]

85. And it failed.

"A progressive who gets things done."

[SusanCalvin]

89. Bad enough to vote for it. But *introduce* it???!!! nt

[Cheese Sandwich]

93. I know right? It's really something.