Would a President Hillary Clinton try again to pass a Flag Protection Act?

[think]

I'm not a fan of burning the American flag or any flag by any stretch of the imagination. I just don't think it's a productive form of protest nor do I think it would help anyone's cause to do so. All it does is make people really get pissed off and miss any message a person might have.

But I don't consider it a crime and still believe it is something that is protected as free speech. Apparently Hillary Clinton felt burning a symbolic piece of cloth was worthy of a year in jail and a $100,000 fine. Hopefully she's evolved on this issue.

Here's her last effort:

Flag Protection Act of 2005

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.[1][2]

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the act was summarized as such:

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.[3]

Since the law was not passed nor considered by the United States Congress, its constitutionality was not challenged by the Supreme Court. However, the bill's language was designed so as to prohibit the desecration of a flag when the intent was found to be a threat to public safety, the intention being that it would therefore not violate the First Amendment and not be declared unconstitutional.[4]

Both co-sponsors of the bill voted against the most recent Flag Desecration Amendment of 2006.

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

[HassleCat]

1. I'm a fan of flag burning

Yes, I agree it's a counterproductive form of protest, but I'm glad people do it once in a while. It illustrates the seriousness with which we regard our 1st Amendment rights. If we can tolerate, and even protect, a form of protest that deeply disturbs us, we're still OK in that department.

[think]

3. I respect people's 1st amendment rights. Thankfully Hillary's law never saw the light of day.

[onenote]

18. It never was intended to, or had a chance, to become law

It was part of a strategic maneuver by opponents of a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

See post #16

[leveymg]

2. President Hillary Pander will get things done with the GOP Congress. This is an example of how.

[onenote]

17. One problem with your conclusion: the repubs opposed the flag law.

And the legislative strategy pursued by Clinton and other Democrats worked perfectly to frustrate the repubs.

See post #16

[UglyGreed]

4. IMO that

sounds like it came from the Tea Party

[CharlotteVale]

5. That was Grade A political pandering! None finer!

[onenote]

19. Actually, it was Grade A political strategy to protect the Constitution

and it worked to perfection.

See post #16

[leftofcool]

6. I would probably agree with this bill............

Inciting a riot is always wrong, and stealing a flag from Government property is wrong no matter what your intent is. Actually, stealing anything from government property is wrong.

[think]

8. So a $100,000 fine and 1 year in jail for burning a flag is ok with you?

[leftofcool]

14. If it incites a riot and gets people hurt or killed, yes!

It isn't about the flag burning, but you already kew that













And spare me the fake outrage

[think]

15. We already have laws specifically dealing with inciting riots

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots

(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) In any prosecution under this section, proof that a defendant engaged or attempted to engage in one or more of the overt acts described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) [2] and (1) has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or (2) has use of or used any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including but not limited to, mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, to communicate with or broadcast to any person or group of persons prior to such overt acts, such travel or use shall be admissible proof to establish that such defendant traveled in or used such facility of interstate or foreign commerce.

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

[Indepatriot]

7. Only if it's politically expediant....

[tk2kewl]

9. but she a liberal

So I'm told

[Truprogressive85]

10. i would laugh if such law was passed

if i buy a flag and want to burn it that's my business , I would love to see someone tell i cant

[Live and Learn]

11. Gotta keep those prisons filled somehow. nt

[FlatBaroque]

12. They don't describe the final penalty that was proposed

A stern rubuke to CUT IT OUT

[Scuba]

13. Real progressives don't pander to right-wing-nut-jobs.

[onenote]

16. The OP is lacking in some important context

For a number of years leading up to 2005, Republicans had pushed for an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban flag "desecration." Those efforts had failed, largely because there were enough Democrats willing to vote against it to prevent the amendment from getting the necessary 2/3 vote needed to send it to the states for ratification.

In 2005, both the House and Senate were solidly in Republican control. In June, the House approved the Constitutional amendment with more than 2/3 support. Thus, it would again fall on the Senate to stop the amendment. With 2006 an election year, there was great concern that the number of Senators willing to vote against the amendment might not be enough to block it. Therefore, shortly after the House vote, Senator Robert Bennett, Utah Republican, joined initially by Democrats Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad, and shortly thereafter by Byron Dorgan, introduced legislation to ban flag desecration. The intent of the move was clear to everyone -- to provide cover for Bennett and the others (some of whom were up for election in 2006) so that they could vote no on the Constitutional amendment, secure in the knowledge that the Republicans who controlled the Senate would never allow the proposed legislative alternative to come to a vote. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service analysis of the proposed legislation noted that it would not prohibit anything that wasn't already prohibited by law (incitement, theft and/or destruction of another person's property, etc). And in fact, no effort was made to move the bill out of committee.

Later in the year, anticipating the possibility that the Republican leadership would try to force an end of year vote on the constitutional amendment, Bennett introduced another version of the flag protection act. This one was co-sponsored by Clinton and was substantially similar to the previously introduced bill, with the most notable difference being the addition of language specifically mentioning flag burning. Once again, the bill was introduced with the knowledge (and in reliance on the fact) that Republican Senate leaders would never allow it to be acted on in lieu of the Constitutional amendment approach they favored.

Finally, in the spring of 2006, anticipating the coming elections, the Republicans geared up to force a vote on the amendment. Those counting votes realized it would be very close -- much closer than in the past -- and that there was a real possibility the amendment could get the required 67 votes to move to the states. At that point, several other Democrats -- Boxer, Carper, and Pryor -- joined the Bennett-Clinton bill as sponsors. On the day of the scheduled vote on the Constitutional amendment, most of the Senators that had signed onto the two Bennett bills joined with Senator Durbin in offering a substitute to the Constitutional amendment favored by Republicans that would have instead addressed flag desecration through legislation essentially identical to the Bennett bills. Boxed in, the Republicans were forced to vote no on the legislative approach, while nearly three dozen Democrats voted in favor. On the vote on the constitutional amendment that then followed, the Democrats, including all of the Democrats that had supported the various legislative alternatives, voted no and the amendment failed -- by exactly one vote. Moreover, all of the Senators that co-sponsored the flag bills that were up for reelection in 2006 won -- the voters clearly not holding their opposition to the amendment (or their sponsorship of the flag protection bill) against them.

So the strategy -- a clever bit of kabuki theater -- worked to a tee. A bill that would not prohibit anything that wasn't already prohibited and that had zero chance of being approved by the Republican controlled Senate, provided the bi-partisan cover for Democrats (and a Republican Senator from a very conservative state) to vote against the much more dangerous Constitutional amendment. While Clinton and the other Democrats were criticized for sponsoring the legislative alternatives by a number of columnists, they actually knew exactly what they were doing and probably deserve our thanks for going out on a limb the way they did in order to stop the flag amendment from getting to the states.

[think]

20. 2 big problems with your un-sourced explanation. 1. A constitutional amendment requires

a super majority in congress just as your un-sourced excuse states. So the Democrats never had to vote for the constitutional amendment and it never would have passed.

This bill provided cover for Hillary Clinton who was running for re-election that year. That's not a good reason to mess with US laws regarding free speech.

2. If the bill had passed it would have allowed ANY burning of a flag to be prosecuted. It was not just covering areas that were already covered by the law.

So basically Clinton and company were basically deceiving voters into thinking they were ardent supporters of protecting the flag rather than employing an honest approach by standing up for the 1st amendment and calling out the GOP for their infringements on the American people's constitutional rights.

They were just covering their butts in an election year. And they did this while risking that their bill which would have expanded the legalities regarding burning flags which could have been passed if Republicans had called their bluff.

Sorry if this doesn't impress me as a legitimate excuse for playing kabuki theater with her legislative efforts in congress.

[onenote]

22. Come visit the real political world some time. Or maybe you're too young to remember 2005.

You can look up and confirm the sponsors and votes on the amendments and bills if you want. I don't need to do it for you. (I will give you a leg up in your research, in the event you actually do want to check out the accuracy of the facts in my post. -- the first flag protection bill was S.1370 (introduced in July 2005); the second was S. 1911 (introduced in October 2005; the House approved the flag amendment on June 22, 2005 (H.Res 10) and the Senate vote (on S.Res. 12) occurred on June 27, 2005 -- immediately following the vote on the Durbin amendment.

You say the Democrats never had to vote for the Amendment and it wouldn't have passed. That's true if you believe that all Democrats were opposed to the amendment. In fact, however, there were a core of conservative Democrats that either out of political fear or conviction, did support the amendment. That is how it got the necessary 2/3 majority in the House and that is why it was on the verge of getting the needed 2/3 majority in the house. It was the group of Democrats that opposed the flag amendment (and that also opposed any flag legislation but that understood how such legislation would give certain Democrats (and the party in general) protection against being labelled "anti-flag" in the 2006 elections. That group included 30 plus Senators, of which Clinton was merely one.

Here's the list of the Senators that voted for the flag bill -- many of them didn't need to worry about whether they would be reelected (including Clinton), but they voted for it anyway because that was the kabuki theater part of it -- to create a firewall of protection for the party in general as well as for certain members.

Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

And here's the list of Democrats that voted against the flag bill:
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Dayton (D-MN)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Stabenow (D-MI)

Notably, Feingold was the only Democrat who voted no on the amendment and the bill. Every other Democrat that voted yes on the bill voted no on the amendment and every other Democrat that voted no on the bill voted yes on the amendment. Like I said, it was, for most Democrats, kabuki theater -- they knew that they could give Bennett, a republican cover by joining him in a bipartisan bill that had absolutely positively no chance in hell of ever becoming law and that, quite frankly, the repubs didn't want to bring to the floor for a vote (but couldnt get around it once they brought the amendment to the floor).

And no, Clinton, and Kennedy, and Wyden, and Obama, and Biden, and so on and so on were not trying to deceive anyone. Everyone knew what the point was. The repubs were trying to force a vote on a constitutional amendment that could very well have been approved before election day and the Democrats were leading a strategy that made it possible for some Senators to have cover.

The thing about this is that I didn't post all of this information specifically to defend Clinton. I'm supporting Bernie (and have donated to his campaign) in the primaries. But if Clinton ends up the nominee, I'll support her against whatever repub runs. My point in posting was to explain the backstory of the legislation. I've worked on and around the Hill for 30 plus years and one of the reasons I support Bernie is that I believe that he can get things done -- that he is capable of compromise and legislative strategy. I've seen it over the years. He can be pragmatic when its called for, as was just recently the case when he voted for the budget deal even though it had things in it neither he (nor I) liked.

Again, to the extent the premise of your objection is that the 30+ Democrats that opposed a constitutional amendment risked enacting legislation that would have imposed penalties for burning a flag for the purpose of intimidating or threatening someone you simply don't understand that there was absolutely no chance the repubs were going to "call their bluff". Zero.

[olddots]

21. at one time the image of the flag couldn't be used for commercial products

that was before the bullshit took over .Hillary wants to be president in the worst way .......the worst way .

[HereSince1628]

23. We probably agree this is -not- desecration , but what if

instead of a military unit name it said

"Black Lives Matter, Milwaukee WI" or "Citizens for Prosperity, Milwaukee, WI" or "Wisconsin NRA Minutemen"

Marching behind such banners was once very common, and may be again someday. Linking movements to political movements is one person's patriotism and another person's desecration. The flag isn't sacred, it's a tool ... an ensign of membership designating a location to rally around and follow.

[99Forever]

24. You don't need rights, only corporations do.

Gotta watch out for those po' po' put upon Wall St. Banksters, not you rabble and prols.