Washington, D.C. — Leading up to Memorial Day, with the support of Iowa Congressman Steve King, the House Judiciary Committee passed a Constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to make it a crime to burn the American flag.

Although almost eighty percent of Americans support a Constitutional amendment banning desecration of the American flag, in 1989 and 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that laws passed by Congress violated the First Amendment. Passing a constitutional amendment is the only way to protect the American flag from acts of desecration.

“Our Founding Fathers would have never imagined the need for an amendment to the Constitution like this,” said King. “They fought so hard to be able to display the American flag, and they did so proudly. This Memorial Day weekend, we must remember all of those who fought for our country and this flag. It’s not just patriotic to want to protect this flag, but our duty as Americans.”

“This flag has led the way into battle, been planted on the moon and draped the coffins of Americans who have sacrificed their lives for our county. It was raised at Iwo Jima and in the debris at Ground Zero. It is the symbol of freedom to everyone in the world,” added King.

H.J. Res. 10, the Flag Protection Amendment, will need to be passed by two-thirds of the full House and Senate and be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become law. The amendment has been passed by the House with more than the two-thirds majority needed in the past five Congresses. In addition, all 50 state legislatures have petitioned Congress to approve a flag protection amendment and send it to them for ratification. The amendment has been considered in the Senate twice in the last five Congresses, and both times it failed to garner the two-thirds majority needed.

Link.

this happens every 10 years or so.  The amendment gets passed by the house and never by the senate.  Itll never get passed. 

this happens every 10 years or so.  The amendment gets passed by the house and never by the senate.  Itll never get passed. 


Remember the republican majority is now much larger compared to ten years ago.

It makes no sense if the article is correct.  The house wants this, all fifty states want this, the president wants this, and 80% of Americans want this, yet the senate (aka the house of lords) says no.  Well we'll see if it fails again.  We shouldn't even need a constitutional amendment, it's just the US supreme court is forcing congress to do it to override their bad ruling.

Sanctimonious fascist mothers!  It's my Constitutionally protected political expression set Old Glory ablaze!

http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/illos/flag.burn.jpg
CELEBRATE YOUR FREEDOM AS AN AMERICAN,
DO IT TODAY!


Burn flags,
not books!

Sanctimonious fascist mothers!  It's my Constitutionally protected political expression set Old Glory ablaze!

http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/illos/flag.burn.jpg
CELEBRATE YOUR FREEDOM AS AN AMERICAN,
DO IT TODAY!


Sarcasm.

“Our Founding Fathers would have never imagined the need for an amendment to the Constitution like this,” said King. “They fought so hard to be able to display the American flag, and they did so proudly. This Memorial Day weekend, we must remember all of those who fought for our country and this flag. It’s not just patriotic to want to protect this flag, but our duty as Americans.”



Which "American flag" did they fight to display?  Most revolutionary soldiers fought under their "state" flags, or flags they had made up, like the "Don't Tread on Me" flag.  And did not the "founding Fathers" themselves "desicrate the flag of England - their flag at the time - as part of the build-up to that revolution?  This is just a big crock of jingoist grandstanding by a bunch of neo-fascists.  I guess its better to have them focus on this than on more serious issues though.

I guess its better to have them focus on this than on more serious issues though.


...or to distract 80% of the American public's attention away from the desecration of everything the flag is supposed to stand for. 


(Maybe there's rampant, wide-spread flag burning problem of which I'm unaware?)

...or to distract 80% of the American public's attention away from the desecration of everything the flag is supposed to stand for. 



That's about the size of it!
BTW, Rep. King, our "Founding Fathers" also wore silly powdered wigs and believed Black people were sub-human.  We don't have to buy the whole enchilada, do we?

And, no GWB, it was not quite sarcasm.  I do believe the anti-do-what-you-want-with-your-own-flag peple ARE fascist and sanctimonious.  I have never been interested in burning the flag, personally, but if these bozos get too close to infringing on my rights to do so, I might have to incinerate one out of respect for the freedoms it ought to represent.  Pass the marshmallows!

Is the Constitution just a plaything to these people? An ammendment to the Constitution is not necessary for stupid sheeshe like this. I'll buttfloss with the flag if I want to... it's just a piece of cloth made in Indonesia by underpaid preteens. What it ought to represent or even what it actually represents is not what's at stake here, it's the emotional (in)security of uberpatriots. So because some people would be offended at even the suggestion of someone buttflossing with the flag, everyone has to worship it now... by law. Well, whatever. This is merely the beginning.

All those soldier who died in America's wars, gave their lives so I could have the right to burn an American flag if I feel so inclined.

...or to distract 80% of the American public's attention away from the desecration of everything the flag is supposed to stand for. 





Touche





Cat

I guess the Republicans have nothing else to do.  They can't destroy Social Security (Bush's plan scored around 30% approval the last time he tried to move on it).  They can't brag about successes in Iraq, because there aren't any.  I'm guessing they're giving up on trying to get armor to the troops too. 

Crap like this always gets the most radical in their party all worked up, and gives them something to blame the liberals for.

I like the 80% of Americans support the bill explanation.  Most likely the from an unquantified study that probably phrases the question something like "Do you think people should burn flags?" which doesn't mean they support the bill, but gives an impressive response. 

All those soldier who died in America's wars, gave their lives so I could have the right to burn an American flag if I feel so inclined.


That's what the first amendment says, thats what even conservative courts have said, that's what anyone with a half of a brain must say.  Free speech

MUST


be the right to disagree, and to express that disagreement in the most forceful (non-violent) terms. 

I like the 80% of Americans support the bill explanation.  Most likely the from an unquantified study that probably phrases the question something like "Do you think people should burn flags?" which doesn't mean they support the bill, but gives an impressive response. 


I suppose it's relieving to hear that the poll showing 80% of the public support this crazy idea was fraudulent. But that piece up there also says this measure passed Congress twice in '89 and '90, that a constitutional ammendment has been passed twice by the house in the past five congresses, and that a number of state legislatures are lobbying for it. That's STILL discouraging.

Could the people's elected representatives really be that stupid/phony/corrupt? What's it say about democracy when it puts clowns like these in charge? It's scary...

But then again, I'm probably worrying over nothing here, aren't I? I really should have more faith in the democratic system. Politicians are, for the most part, smart, capable individuals deserving of their posts.

I mean, just look at the president. He's not some pea-brained, moronic, dimwitted, incompetent buffoon, is he?

Hey, wait a second!....  :o

Oh no! I just became very, very frightened!

Mommy....  :\'(

I suppose it's relieving to hear that the poll showing 80% of the public support this crazy idea was fraudulent.

No they're not.  Every poll shows majority support.

No they're not.  Every poll shows majority support.


here's one from 2002 that doesn't

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/30/national/main520314.shtml

While 75 percent considered the right to speak freely as "essential," almost half, 46 percent, supported amending the Constitution to prohibit flag burning.

Can't find any more recent ones that aren't online polls or just quoted as fact on messageboards with no real agency behind the numbers (like the AP, or Zogby, etc).  P

http://www.tcn.net/~opticom/Steve/recent.htm

Americans may think they want a flag burning amendment, but once they know it means restricting their right to free speech their views change dramatically.

gee, there's a surprise.  When people are asked if the support the amendment, initially they say yes, until they're told the downside of such a narrow minded amendment.

Don't they have anything better to "decide"?  I mean, it's not like there are bands of wild flag-burners out there ::) 
You mean hippies and Muslims don't burn American flags in YOUR town square every Saturday afternoon?  You're lucky!  The remnants from last week's flag burnings are still smoking here, and they're backing in the next truckload for tomorrow!

here's one from 2002 that doesn't

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/30/national/main520314.shtml

While 75 percent considered the right to speak freely as "essential," almost half, 46 percent, supported amending the Constitution to prohibit flag burning.



What percentage doesn't?  Not 54% like you may think.  Remember polls always have undecided and/or no opinion respondents.

Americans may think they want a flag burning amendment, but once they know it means restricting their right to free speech their views change dramatically.

Something tells me the question was: "Do you support a constitutional amendment banning the burning of the American flag, an amendment that violates the first amendment?"

It's obvious that at least three-fourths of Americans disapprove of burning the American flag, probably even the 80% mentioned in the article.

Anyway, here is a 1998 Washington Post poll that shows majority support for an amendment.

What percentage doesn't?  Not 54% like you may think.  Remember polls always have undecided and/or no opinion respondents.

Something tells me the question was: "Do you support a constitutional amendment banning the burning of the American flag, an amendment that violates the first amendment?"

It's obvious that at least three-fourths of Americans disapprove of burning the American flag, probably even the 80% mentioned in the article.

Anyway, here is a 1998 Washington Post poll that shows majority support for an amendment.


Majority support.  The same percentage majority support that elected Bush, 51% to 48%.  And it didn't change in three years.  You have to go back almost 15 years, to a time when people didn't hear the explanations of why an amendment is such a bad idea, before you find majority support that is greater than 3% (unless you believe a biased organization like Wirthlin Worldwide/Citizens Flag Alliance).

While a majority of people may disapprove of burning the flag, the majority does not approve of an amendment. I don't like it when Americans burn the flag in protest, but I support their right to do it. 

You haven't even found good fake numbers to support this claim yet.

Another disturbing aspect of the proposed legislation, is who gets to decide what "desecration of the flag" shall consist of, and what the penalties shall be!
If I can't incinerate a flag in protest, can I still incinerate one that is old and tattered.  Burning is considered more respectful to an old flag than stuffing it in a garbage can.  How old deteriorated does a flag have to be before I'm allowed to incinerate it without violating the law?  Or is it a matter of intent?  Thought crime, anybody?
If I can't incinerate a flag in protest, can I shred it?  Can I fling it on ground and dance on it?  Can I deface it? 
If I draw a picture of a flag and burn that, am I still burning a flag?  What about one of those tiny flags they hand out at parades? 

In the Stalinist Russia, the image of Stalin was mandated as sacred.  A janitor got sent to the gulag because he put his hat on a statue of Stalin while he was mopping the floor.  A schoolteacher got sent to prison camp because she accidentally pierced a newspaper photo of Stalin while she was trying to hang it on a wall.  This is what happens when you overvalue a thing as a symbol of patriotism.

True patriotism is the heart and in the spirit, not some piece of fabric.

Another disturbing aspect of the proposed legislation, is who gets to decide what "desecration of the flag" shall consist of, and what the penalties shall be!


About dusk, couple of weekends back, during a nasty thunderstorm, we drove past a muddy field.

About dusk, couple of weekends back, during a nasty thunderstorm, we drove past a muddy field.  The owner (or someone he'd given given permission to) had decided to use the field for a display of patriotism (made clear by all the patriotic messages on the homemade signs also littering up the roadside -- in clear violation of our laws concerning signage.) 

So, you know those REALLY HUGE flags?  The ones that should be on a thick pole at least two to three stories high?  Got that picture in your head?  Now stick about  20 of those on the same cheap, spindly 1 story high poles you find in millions of back yards across the country -- got those poles bending under the weight?  Ok, now crank up the wind and rain and bring on nightfall.  If you're picturing a bunch of giant flags flapping in the muck and mud, threatening to snap the bended poles from which they wade... in violation of several points of flag ettiquette,  fronted by a bunch of ugly home-made signs professing love of flag and country... you're seeing what we saw. 
 
I say we start by teaching the idiots who want to enforce flag ettiquette  what flag ettiquette really is.  Round up all the idiots who fly their flags at night or in the rain or who let their flags touch the ground or who wear the flag on jewelry, t-shirts, etc.  or who adorn their dogs or vehicles with it or who fly their flags at half mast when their pets bite the big one or...   




Thank you for saying what I wanted to say, only saying it better.  I actually saw an idiot with mudflaps
with the flag.  I'd bet you he would be all for the amendment not knowing that he'd be in jail as one of the first offenders.

About dusk, couple of weekends back, during a nasty thunderstorm, we drove past a muddy field.  The owner (or someone he'd given given permission to) had decided to use the field for a display of patriotism (made clear by all the patriotic messages on the homemade signs also littering up the roadside -- in clear violation of our laws concerning signage.) 

 So, you know those REALLY HUGE flags?  The ones that should be on a thick pole at least two to three stories high?  Got that picture in your head?  Now stick about  20 of those on the same cheap, spindly 1 story high poles you find in millions of back yards across the country -- got those poles bending under the weight?  Ok, now crank up the wind and rain and bring on nightfall.  If you're picturing a bunch of giant flags flapping in the muck and mud, threatening to snap the bended poles from which they wade... in violation of several points of flag ettiquette,  fronted by a bunch of ugly home-made signs professing love of flag and country... you're seeing what we saw. 
   
I say we start by teaching the idiots who want to enforce flag ettiquette  what flag ettiquette really is.  Round up all the idiots who fly their flags at night or in the rain or who let their flags touch the ground or who wear the flag on jewelry, t-shirts, etc.  or who adorn their dogs or vehicles with it or who fly their flags at half mast when their pets bite the big one or...   




youre absolutly right MooRocca.  Some people are very ignorant when it comes to flag ettiquette.  I remember after 9-11 people were driving around with the flag attached to their front hood, or on their trunk, people were hanging it backwards out of windows, stappeling and piercing the flag to hang it up, making it into clothing, etc etc etc.  But, as much as I wished someone would teach them how to properly hang and display a flag, I didnt want to complain because at least they were showing their patriotism.  Though, it does sicken me when dislaying a flag is done wrong now....

I find it interesting that one of proper ways of desposing a worn out flag is burning (buring is the other way). So if there is an amendment saying that we can't burn one, are they going to make exceptions? It just seems like a bunch of b.s. and a total waste of time of you ask me. Congress should be concintraiting on more important issues like keeping tabs on what books people read.  ::)




Cat

I find it interesting that one of proper ways of desposing a worn out flag is burning (buring is the other way). So if there is an amendment saying that we can't burn one, are they going to make exceptions? It just seems like a bunch of b.s. and a total waste of time of you ask me. Congress should be concintraiting on more important issues like keeping tabs on what books people read.  ::)




Cat

It's a smart strategy for the Republican majority to waste time on total BS.  It distracts attention from the total fiasco they're making out of everything that matters!

I find it interesting that one of proper ways of desposing a worn out flag is burning (buring is the other way). So if there is an amendment saying that we can't burn one, are they going to make exceptions? It just seems like a bunch of b.s. and a total waste of time of you ask me. Congress should be concintraiting on more important issues like keeping tabs on what books people read.  ::)




Cat


What makes you think that "Big Brother" isn't keeping tabs?  They're going to get me for studying medieval murder techniques (Cadfael) and Napolionic naval strategy (Hornblower). 

Its too hot, and I'm too lazy to google it, but there was a case, in the early 20th Century when William "Big Bill" Haywood was accused of desecrating the flag by using it in a political handbill regarding the state of justice in Colorado.  Stuff like "Free Speech Denied, and Habius Corpous Suspended written on the white stripes.  His lawyer produced a ton of adverts using the flag with product names written on the white stripes.  NOT GUILTY.

The flag is both a patriotic and a political symbol and always has been.  Get real.

I find it interesting that one of proper ways of desposing a worn out flag is burning (buring is the other way). So if there is an amendment saying that we can't burn one, are they going to make exceptions? It just seems like a bunch of b.s. and a total waste of time of you ask me. Congress should be concintraiting on more important issues like keeping tabs on what books people read.  ::)




Cat


well, to serriously answer this question, I beleive that the bill that went through congress right after the Texas v Johnson ruling had a provision that only members of the military or American Leagion or some government officials are able to burn the flag for disposing. 



Last December I did a paper on the Texas v Johnson case so I should remember this better, but unfortunatly I do not

You mean hippies and Muslims don't burn American flags in YOUR town square every Saturday afternoon?  You're lucky!  The remnants from last week's flag burnings are still smoking here, and they're backing in the next truckload for tomorrow!


It's only a matter of time before Bush and Gonzalez get the jackbooted, Homeland Secrurity Facists to pound these traitorous terrorist into the ground before they ship their butts off to Gitmo Gulag.

This is stupid, because people don't want to burn the flag anyway, even people who think they should have a right to.  So if you make it illegal, you will have a few more people do it just out of protest.  It's like if you made eating insects illegal.  People would do it just to rebel against it.

What's really sad and pathetic about this blatant political manuevering, is that there was only one reported instance for all of last year.  At a time when we're at war, and close to half the public disapproves of the war and the president. Surely, if people were burning flags, last year would have been the year to want to do it.

What's really sad and pathetic about this blatant political manuevering, is that there was only one reported instance for all of last year.  At a time when we're at war, and close to half the public disapproves of the war and the president. Surely, if people were burning flags, last year would have been the year to want to do it.

Sometimes the terrorists and the child molesters aren't enough.  Sometimes you need to give fear, anger, and self-righteous indignation a turbo boost.  Flag burners are the perfect foe.  You push "the flag" as America incarnate and develop a new class of enemy: those who would destroy America by destroying the flag.  From there, polticians can paint themselves and protectors of America by pushing for a Constitutional amandment to protect "the flag," therefore "America," from these America destroyers.  The fact that nobody's burning the flag, and burning the flag threatens no one's life is all for the better!
FILE UNDER: WARS YOU CAN'T LOSE!

Flag-Burning Amendment Advances in House
The Associated Press
By: Laurie Kellman
06/22/05

The House moved Wednesday toward approval of a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

Lawmakers in the House debated - as they have six times before - whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.

Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37.

But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.

By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.

Link: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050622/D8ASPBH80.html

What does that mean?


It means that the United States congress and the state legislatures will have the power to make laws restricting flag desecration.  It's NOT an outright ban, it just shifts the power from the supreme court to the legislatures.

And what counts as a flag?

Read it again: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

This is stupid-butt time wasting nonsense.

Every time someone opposes something, it's a waste of time.  Let them vote it up or down.

The Kyoto treaty was a waste of time, everyone knew it would fail (and it did by a vote of 95-0.)  A lot of things are probably a waste of time in the house and the senate, bills that's unimportant (like congress apologizing for not pass anti-lynching legislation earlier) and bills that stand no chance (like McCain-Kennedy.)

It means that the United States congress and the state legislatures will have the power to make laws restricting flag desecration.  It's NOT an outright ban, it just shifts the power from the supreme court to the legislatures.

Read it again: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Every time someone opposes something, it's a waste of time.  Let them vote it up or down.

The Kyoto treaty was a waste of time, everyone knew it would fail (and it did by a vote of 95-0.)  A lot of things are probably a waste of time in the house and the senate, bills that's unimportant (like congress apologizing for not pass anti-lynching legislation earlier) and bills that stand no chance (like McCain-Kennedy.)


Yeah, too bad that anti-lynching thing was such a waste of time.  It wasted time becuase so many of your likeminded buddies stonewalled a no-brainer for so long.  Whether it passed or not was almost irrelevant beside the opportunity to see where these clowns stand.  That alone was worth the discussion.

House approves flag-burning amendment
The Sacramento Bee
06/22/05

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

By a 286-130 vote, House members approved the amendment - as they have six times before - after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections. The measure now advances to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in its 16-year history.

Read more here.

Which "American flag" did they fight to display? Most revolutionary soldiers fought under their "state" flags, or flags they had made up, like the "Don't Tread on Me" flag. And did not the "founding Fathers" themselves "desicrate the flag of England - their flag at the time - as part of the build-up to that revolution? This is just a big crock of jingoist grandstanding by a bunch of neo-fascists. I guess its better to have them focus on this than on more serious issues though.
Hey...my father fought in the Second World War for that flag...and the freedom it stands for. I am NOT for burning our flag...I feel it's DISRESPECT for those who fought for our freedom!

What does that mean? They would have the power to prohibit it, but it doesn't say straight out it's a Federal offense.  And what counts as a flag?  If I throw my Ralph Lauren flag T-shirt in the incinerator, I can go to jail?  Or is that only if I do it in public?  Or only if I do it on the network news?  This is stupid-butt time wasting nonsense.  I can't wait to see this stupid law.  Bring it on!
Brian...as I have said before MY FATHER FOUGHT IN WW2 for Old Glory...and the freedom it stands for. It is NOT 'just a flag' to me....You might as well have NO RESPECT for our veterans!

Brian...as I have said before MY FATHER FOUGHT IN WW2 for Old Glory...and the freedom it stands for. It is NOT 'just a flag' to me....You might as well have NO RESPECT for our veterans!


I used to wear the uniform and while I never saw combat, I am a veteran. I believe in the First Amendment and freedom of speech. I would much perfer to "pledge my allegiance" to my country than to a piece of material. I wouldn't burn the flag myself-in fact, I have one in my front livingroom window, but I think we, as U.S. citizens have the right to do so if we want.




Cat

House approves flag-burning amendment
The Sacramento Bee
06/22/05

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

By a 286-130 vote, House members approved the amendment - as they have six times before - after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections. The measure now advances to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in its 16-year history.

Read more here.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're under a new form of government:  Idiocracy!

TonySandDaleJrRhot wrote:
Brian...as I have said before MY FATHER FOUGHT IN WW2 for Old Glory...and the freedom it stands for. It is NOT 'just a flag' to me....You might as well have NO RESPECT for our veterans!
If you intertwine the sacrifices of your loved ones with the physical integrity of each and every American flag, don't you make the honor of your family and country utterly vulnerable?  That goes for everybody and everything in this great nation.  Patriotism and honor are in the mind, heart, and spirit, not in a piece of cloth.

Besides, we don't need Constitutional protection for people send mom flowers and Mothers Day.  It is protection of controversial behavior that guarantees the freedom of us all.  If you see somebody burning a flag, just say, "I don't like it, but that's his trip," and go about your business.

Congress is pushing for a solution to which there is no problem.  Who is out there desecrating the flag all the time?

Actually, I did see video footage of some angry Middle Eastern-types incinerating Old Glory and screaming about the ascendency of Islam.  That is indeed despicable behavior as far as I'm concerned.  They were doing it right on the sidewalk.  So let the cops arrest them for disturbing the peace and public endangerment.  No need to pass a Constitutional amendment against flag desecration just because some people want to be azzwholes!  If such an amendment passes, the amount of time and money wasted just figuring out what the h*ll it means will be astronomical!

Now I'm starting to wonder, who needs a constitutional amendment?

War protester sets flag on fire/attacked by concertgoers, then arrested, his mother says
The Press Enterprise
By: Sarah Burge
07/05/05

MURRIETA: Lee Henry Vollick, 19, is attacked by concertgoers, then arrested, his mother says.

MURRIETA - After a 19-year-old war protester set fire to an American flag at the Murrieta city birthday bash Saturday evening, angry bystanders attacked him before he could say a word, his mother said Sunday.

Police said Lee Henry Vollick, of Murrieta, set an American flag ablaze around 7:55 p.m. in the middle of a crowded concert at the California Oaks Sports Park.

The protester's mother, Barbara Vollick, said her son was trying to make a statement against the war in Iraq, not against the United States.

"He's just a college student being crazy," she said.

Murrieta police Sgt. Dennis Vrooman said, "He was basically a one-man demonstration."

He was trying to get others to join him, Vrooman said, "but he wasn't getting any cooperation."

Vollick said her son was upset about President Bush's speech on Iraq last week.

"He's very angry that our young men are dying," Vollick said.

"He didn't even get to say anything," she said, alleging that about a half-dozen people attacked him and pulled the flag away. One man punched him in the face, she said.

Vollick said Sunday her son wasn't in any condition to speak with the press.

"He's actually in a lot of pain right now." She said his face was cut, his neck and back were hurt, and he had welts on his wrists from handcuffs police placed on him when he was arrested.

Vollick was up all night in jail, she said, and he wasn't released until nearly 10 a.m. Sunday morning.

According to a police news release, a Murrieta police officer approached Vollick because the fire posed a hazard to the crowd. The fire burned out quickly, but the officer tried to grab Vollick anyway.

Vollick resisted and tried to break away from his grasp, the release said. With the help of several bystanders, including two off-duty Murrieta police officers, the officer brought Vollick to the ground.

Vollick was arrested on suspicion of resisting a police officer, disturbing a public assembly and inciting a riot. Vollick's mother said he was just trying to stand up, not fight the officers.

"He was yelling, 'You're hurting me,' " she said. "He has a bad back."

Vrooman said, "From my understanding, there were quite a few people in the crowd who were displeased at what he was doing." When the police took the teen him away, Vrooman said, "people applauded."

Vollick said her son was a student at Mt. San Jacinto College for a semester and a half, but had to take time off for health reasons.

She said he had planned to go back to school in August or join the Navy.

"He loves the military," Vollick said, adding that he was a Young Marine for two years when they lived in San Diego. "He wants to serve his country, but he doesn't want to kill people."

Link: http://www.pe.com/localnews/southwest/stories/PE_News_Local_D_burn04.be6e9.html

Now I'm starting to wonder, who needs a constitutional amendment?

War protester sets flag on fire/attacked by concertgoers, then arrested, his mother says
The Press Enterprise
By: Sarah Burge
07/05/05

MURRIETA: Lee Henry Vollick, 19, is attacked by concertgoers, then arrested, his mother says.

MURRIETA - After a 19-year-old war protester set fire to an American flag at the Murrieta city birthday bash Saturday evening, angry bystanders attacked him before he could say a word, his mother said Sunday.

Police said Lee Henry Vollick, of Murrieta, set an American flag ablaze around 7:55 p.m. in the middle of a crowded concert at the California Oaks Sports Park.

The protester's mother, Barbara Vollick, said her son was trying to make a statement against the war in Iraq, not against the United States.

"He's just a college student being crazy," she said.

Murrieta police Sgt. Dennis Vrooman said, "He was basically a one-man demonstration."

He was trying to get others to join him, Vrooman said, "but he wasn't getting any cooperation."

Vollick said her son was upset about President Bush's speech on Iraq last week.

"He's very angry that our young men are dying," Vollick said.

"He didn't even get to say anything," she said, alleging that about a half-dozen people attacked him and pulled the flag away. One man punched him in the face, she said.

Vollick said Sunday her son wasn't in any condition to speak with the press.

"He's actually in a lot of pain right now." She said his face was cut, his neck and back were hurt, and he had welts on his wrists from handcuffs police placed on him when he was arrested.

Vollick was up all night in jail, she said, and he wasn't released until nearly 10 a.m. Sunday morning.

According to a police news release, a Murrieta police officer approached Vollick because the fire posed a hazard to the crowd. The fire burned out quickly, but the officer tried to grab Vollick anyway.

Vollick resisted and tried to break away from his grasp, the release said. With the help of several bystanders, including two off-duty Murrieta police officers, the officer brought Vollick to the ground.

Vollick was arrested on suspicion of resisting a police officer, disturbing a public assembly and inciting a riot. Vollick's mother said he was just trying to stand up, not fight the officers.

"He was yelling, 'You're hurting me,' " she said. "He has a bad back."

Vrooman said, "From my understanding, there were quite a few people in the crowd who were displeased at what he was doing." When the police took the teen him away, Vrooman said, "people applauded."

Vollick said her son was a student at Mt. San Jacinto College for a semester and a half, but had to take time off for health reasons.

She said he had planned to go back to school in August or join the Navy.

"He loves the military," Vollick said, adding that he was a Young Marine for two years when they lived in San Diego. "He wants to serve his country, but he doesn't want to kill people."

Link: http://www.pe.com/localnews/southwest/stories/PE_News_Local_D_burn04.be6e9.html

What a dumb sh*t!  You don't win any support for peace by setting the flag on fire.  So, he got beat up?  What is he surprised or something?  The cop still had legal grounds to grab him for public endangerment.  That's what I was saying, you don't need prohibit flag-burning, public endangerment does the job.
Maybe he was out of the Marines and on break from college because of mental health duress.
Anti-war people need this kid like a hole in the head.  If I was going to burn a flag (which I have no intention of doing), I would do it in the name of the right to burn the flag, not trying to win support for another cause.
Anyway, that kid's lucky he's not eating lunch out of a tube right now!

What a dumb sh*t!  You don't win any support for peace by setting the flag on fire.  So, he got beat up?  What is he surprised or something?  The cop still had legal grounds to grab him for public endangerment.  That's what I was saying, you don't need prohibit flag-burning, public endangerment does the job.


See, the left and the right can compromise.

The right to burn the flag stays as long as the right to beat up any moron burning the flag stays.  Deal?

See, the left and the right can compromise.

The right to burn the flag stays as long as the right to beat up any moron burning the flag stays.  Deal?

No deal.  They don't have the right to beat up the moron who burns the flag.  I was merely saying he's an even bigger moron if he's surprised he got beat up!  The rednecks that beat him up shouldn't have laid a hand on him, but you can't expect behave provacatively and have the easily provoked show self restraint.

So as I was watching the Fourth of July celebrations I was wondering how many people at these functions
realize how they were desecrating the flag with all their costumes and novelties and jumping around.  Seems one persons desecration is anothers party

See, the left and the right can compromise.

The right to burn the flag stays as long as the right to beat up any moron burning the flag stays. Deal?


So you are saying it is ok for a gang of vigilantees to physically attack someone who is doing something LEGAL that they disagree with because it is offensive to YOUR idea of what America is.  That is a sick, dangerous thinking.  This is Klan-type thinking for sure.  How scary.

Sanctimonious fascist mothers! It's my Constitutionally protected political expression set Old Glory ablaze!

http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/illos/flag.burn.jpg
CELEBRATE YOUR FREEDOM AS AN AMERICAN,
DO IT TODAY!


Burn flags,
not books!
I beg to differ about burning the American flag...my father was a World War II veteran who fought for this country...and I feel that burning the flag that our veterans fought under and DIED HEROICALLY for is a horrible insult to them....
just my opinion as an American whose dad fought for America..

So you are saying it is ok for a gang of vigilantees to physically attack someone who is doing something LEGAL that they disagree with because it is offensive to YOUR idea of what America is. That is a sick, dangerous thinking. This is Klan-type thinking for sure. How scary.
My FATHER fought in World War II (US NAVY-Pacific Fleet)...he fought against the Japanese...so that those South Pacific islands were liberated from Tojo's PURE EVIL..so I am sickened by those who BURN OUR FLAG....consider those in the Middle East who hate us and want to blow this country to smithereens so they can have their JIHAD and make women hide their faces,keeping ALL women 'barefoot, pregnant,and in the kitchen'..

Our FLAG stands for the rights we have as Americans and for:
Freedom from FEAR
Freedom of SPEECH(in other words we are not carted off to prison for saying 'I hate George W. Bush(or Clinton,or whoever is the President..)
Freedom of RELIGION
Freedom of THE PRESS/THE MEDIA
and
FREEDOM from OPPRESSION and PREDJUDICE...

Let's put it this way...We have it pretty darn GOOD here compared to places like China and the Third World countries...

So you think anyone who opposes this law is against freedom. That is not true. I didn't say or infer anything about any veterans, so please stop with the hyped up McCarthyism. It's very 1950s.
Look...I don't mean to sound like a prude..but I KNOW that my father was fighting for what that flag is a symbol of....And if it's just a 'piece of cloth' why is a flag draped on the coffins of our servicemen who died defending freedom,as well as policemen and firefighters who get killed in the line of duty?

Nobody is talking about your relatives, so please don't put them in the conversation to pretend that people who disagree with you is disrespecting your family and the servicemen.  That is just cheap and manipulating and disrespectful of the armed forces.  Nobody is saying you should not respect whatever the flag means to you, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal if somebody wants to burn up a piece of cloth.