Montana Senator Thinks The Third Time Is The Charm For His Anti-Flag Burning Amendment

from the stupid-on-repeat dept

Far too many government officials think it would be a good idea to lock up people for exercising their First Amendment rights. There’s a lot of stuff certain politicians (including our former president!) and their supporters think should be criminal acts, but keep running head-on into the Constitution and its protection of speech.

At the top of this list is flag burning. This used to be a crime, but the Supreme Court said desecrating the flag was actually a form of criticism — one fully protected by the First Amendment. That hasn’t stopped a bunch of legislators from trying to make flag burning a crime. “Trying” is the key word here. The Supreme Court’s Texas v. Johnson decision makes it pretty much impossible for flag burning bans to ever be considered constitutional.

But what if the Constitution could be changed? That’s Montana Senator Steve Daine’s idea. And it’s one of his only ideas. Daines wants to amend the Constitution to make flag burning illegal. It’s something he’s wanted to do for several years now.

Daines first raised this idea in 2017. He floated it again in 2019. Those efforts went nowhere. Two years have passed and Daines is trying it again.

GOP Sen. Steve Daines (Mont.) on Monday reintroduced a constitutional amendment to bar the “physical desecration of the American flag.”

“The American flag is a symbol of liberty and a beacon of hope. It represents the ideals that our nation was built upon and for decades, brave men and women have carried its colors into battle to defend the United States of America,” the Montana senator said in a statement released on Flag Day.

“The Stars and Stripes are a representation of freedom. We must always protect and respect the American flag,” he added.

Hey, Steve, the flag also represents the ideals of this country and the freedoms the government considers to be inalienable. One of those is the First Amendment, which strongly protects criticism of the government, including (but not limited to) setting the Stars and Stripes on fire.

The entirety of Daines’ proposed amendment is this: the removal of Congress’ gloves, allowing it to pummel the First Amendment in this specific way:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Daines isn’t alone in this stupidity. The amendment has five co-sponsors: Marsha Blackburn, Mike Crapo, Shelly Capito, Kevin Cramer, and Pat Toomey. These are the six people who think the First Amendment should cover less than it already does and are willing to amend the Constitution to do it.

Let’s say everyone goes straight fucking insane and this amendment is appended to the Constitution. That still won’t make flag burning illegal. Congress will have to pass a law banning flag burning and get it signed by the President. Good luck. If Daines couldn’t get this done in 2017 and 2019 with the then-leader of the free world agitating for jailing flag burners, it’s not going to get done when there’s someone a bit more rational holding the presidential pen set.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Montana Senator Thinks The Third Time Is The Charm For His Anti-Flag Burning Amendment”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
60 Comments
TaboTokasays:

Re: Re:

adding the thin blue line

If such an amendment were enacted and such a law were passed, we can then get those racists busted for their alt-traitor flag!

BTW, What is physical desecration? Dry-humping & molesting? Using it as a spear? As a club? What about displaying it improperly? What about wearing it on clothing or wearing it as clothing?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What about wearing it on clothing or wearing it as clothing?

Wait… is it "only" an actual piece of cloth used to display the emblem of the United States, or does the image of the flag count?

If it is even the appearance of the flag, then heaven help you if you display us_flag.gif… closing that window could be desecration!

That One Guysays:

'That's not how you disrepect the flag, THIS is how you do so.'

Because nothing shows more respect towards a flag that represents personal freedom and a country founded by overthrowing those in power by telling them they damn well will respect authority and no you most certainly are not allowed to engage in speech that shows disrespect towards it!

The irony of course is that for all their faux outrage they are showing way more contempt towards the flag and what it stands for than any amount of people torching the thing ever could, venerating a piece of cloth over the ideals and history that it represents.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: At least he's taking the correct approach

But Congress ignores most of the existing Constitution now, so amendments are unnecessary in the realpolitik world of Federal rule.
Most of the current staggering expanse of Federal Government would not exist today if the Constitution was actually obeyed in WashingtonDC
Don’t fret over legal formalities though — the three Federal Branches are run by the very Best & Brightest people anywhere (?)

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: At least he's taking the correct approach

packing the court

Funny, isn’t that what McConnell did in denying a confirmation hearing during an election year, and then having a confirmation during an election year, all because it benefitted his party.

Kind of sounds like…. packing the court.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re: Re:3 'How dare you try to counter my hypocrisy!?'

Republicans crying foul that the SC might be expanded and judges added to it that might not agree with them after they refused to seat one judge ‘because it was an election year’ and then rushed to seat another during an election year is like someone who you just watched stack a deck of cards in their favor screaming ‘cheater!’ when someone else moves to shuffle the deck.

Khym Chanursays:

Re: Re:

Desecrating a BLM logo isn’t in-of-itself a hate crime in the U.S. There are laws making it if something is already a crime then punishment can be enhanced if it can be shown that the crime was motivated by hatred of a race/religion/etc. Depending on the circumstances of a crime, desecrating a BLM logo might be entered as evidence that the crime was motivated by hatred of blacks. But if you own a BLM logo and desecreate it then that, in-and-of-itself, is perfectly legal (assuming you don’t, for example, burn it in a manner that violates a fire-safety law).

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re:

"but desecrating a BLM logo is a hate crime, right?"

Know how we can tell you’re trolling in bad faith, bro?

You can burn any flag. It’s legal and should be legal.

If the flag you burn is that of your nation it tells everyone that you condemn the current actions of your nation.

If the flag you burn is that of another nation it tells everyone that you condemn that nation.

If the flag you burn is a Black Lives Matter flag then it tells everyone that you condemn the idea that Black Lives Matter.

So yeah, you burn a BLM flag you just told everyone watching that you are quite likely a racist or carrying water for racists. You burn your own flag it is generally the highest expression of patriotism – that of holding yourself accountable for some action.

As usual you alt-right asshats are utterly unable to patriot properly and don’t grok context.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re:

Ironically the Trump cult and the current GQP have by now swung so far to the brownshirt section they are the literal image of anti-americanism.

Any member of the Greatest Generation would be reaching for their M4 at the rhetoric spewed by these assholes – they’d recognize it well, having grown up fighting the wehrmacht.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

HUH?!? If you think it’s Republicans that are censoring speech, you have truly had your head up your ass for the past year or two!

Yeah, you know, for such a widespread problem, I sure have heard a-lot about it. Care to speculate as to why?

You’d think hearing about legitimate censorship would come from someone other than the supposed censors…then again, I think it’s fairly obvious that you’re just full of shit.

Bloofsays:

Re: Re:

A former Bush admin official making left wing content harder to find while ensuring right wing clickbait and conspiracy theories are promoted. Climate change and america’s history of genocide and slavery being erased from school textbooks. Astroturf groups creating lists of professors to fire because they’re deemed too left wing. People being barred from being employed by state governments unless they agree not to participate in any boycotts of Israel. Mass purges of anyone in office who doesn’t wholeheartedly support Donald Trump. Plots to put hidden cameras on kids so parents can record teachers and get them fired for political reasons. Attempts to get entire fields of study vilified and banned because it teaches students racism is bad. Laws passed to try and compel professors and students to disclose their political leanings so politicians can withdraw funding if they’re deemed too left wing… You need to close the Tim Pool and Andy Ngo videos you’re watching as it ain’t democrats doing that, champ.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re:

"Have you heard of political correctness? Public shaming? Cancel culture? violent riots (frequently in Berkeley) to stop conservative speakers?"

You mean private citizens deciding they don’t want to hear what the deplorable asshole has to say? Yeah, that’s how free speech works.

As opposed by the suggestion of you asshats in the alt-right who keep suggesting government violates 1A by telling people "Say THIS and we toss you in jail".

And may I commend you on your latest nick, Baghdad Bob. Though given your persistent tells I have to say you might as well save yourself the effort and just keep posting anonymously since the content of your message keeps making your sock puppet’s name irrelevant.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Does it ever make you stop and question why so many people do no want to hear republican speakers? (Also, I would love to see those links as to how violent they were)

If Hitler were able to speak publicly tomorrow, wouldn’t you want to do everything you could to stop him?

Oh wait… you and your ilk think Hitler did a lot of good things. Bad example.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"…describing these violent events."

Students protesting actual white supremacy advocates from appearing on the stage of their school? Sounds to me as if healthy principles still exist, then.

It’s time for you guys to realize that no one sane gives a fsck about your feelings, Proud Boy. Your kind isn’t welcome where educated and civilized people gather. It’s that simple. The citizenry as a whole doesn’t want to hear what you have to say. And your great-grandparents remembering the 40’s would be the first ones to show you the door.

Once again for the slow of wit, then. Burning your own flag means that you currently hold your own nation accountable over something; it’s the most patriotic thing you can do when you feel shame over the actions of you own country.

Trying to forbid that expression equates to the stance that no matter how deplorably your nation has acted you are forbidden public dissent. Welcome to the soviet union, comrade.

And burning a BLM flag, while legal, means you condemn the concept of Black Lives Matter. It’s certainly legal but it does tell everyone around you that you sympathize with the people burning crosses.

This is not rocket science. Except perhaps to the alt-right, I guess.

Christensonsays:

Deepfakes and old videos

Creates a deepfake video of a flag burning
Finds a video on youtube where a building with a flag on top was burning down for unrelated reasons
Edits an old movie where people were following the official flag manuals and ceremonially burning the flag being retired

Now, are these physical desecration???

ECAsays:

If you think a flag means so much

How about the respect for OTHERS flags.
Muslim?
Nazis?
Palestine?
Israel?
Gay pride?
China?

If you dont mind burning THOSE for what they stand for, Why? Its the opinion of the person burning it. Not yours.

And If you think that all flags should stand.
I HOPE you know what the USA HAS/has not done in its name. defending your flag is 1 thing, running around to other countries to PROVE something, isnt defending.

Middle Bass Islandsays:

What is a U.S. flag?

Defining a flag that should not be burned is hard to do intelligently.

In the mid-1980s I was at a July 4th parade in Atlanta with a lot of nice U.S. flags in the parade, but someone was handing out free tiny flags that deserved burning. They had a big "Made in China" label, and the star field and stripes were badly misprinted and out of alignment.

That was about the time the whole fuss about flag burning started, and I remember thinking that no one understood that some flags need burning.

Taking any symbols too seriously is stupid and a waste of time and effort.

RyanNerdsays:

I hesitate b/c the government could get dangerous ideas

People who burn the flag in public could be fined or jailed for public endangerment. Fined for environmental violations (depending on if it is in a nanny state).
There are a couple of others I thought of but the government has too much power as it is and I don’t want to give them more ideas.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:00 Elizabeth Warren Threatens Amazon For Selling Books Containing Misinformation; Perhaps Forgetting The 1st Amendment (49)
09:26 8th Circuit's Bizarre Ruling In Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Ryan Lizza (13)
10:43 Satire Site Gets Ridiculous Threat Letter From Baseball Team; cc's Barbra Streisand In Its Response (20)
12:12 Commentator Insists That Fact Checking Is An Attack On Free Speech (163)
13:34 Court: Just Because An Anonymous Yelp Reviewer Is Mean, Doesn't Mean You Get To Unmask The Reviewer (26)
12:06 Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop (108)
13:36 Report Shows DOJ Engaged In Selective Prosecution To Maximize Punishment For 'Black Lives Matter' Protesters (22)
16:02 Appeals Court Shuts Down Kansas' 30-Year-Old Ag Gag Law (23)
13:39 Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit (102)
10:51 Appeals Court Says Iowa's Ag-Gag Law Is About 50 Percent Constitutional (15)
13:45 Nassau County Executive Vetoes Bill That Would Punish People For Making Cops Feel Bad (15)
12:24 Shiva Ayyadurai Drops His Potentially Interesting Lawsuit About Massachusetts Officials Complaining To Twitter About Tweets (32)
12:03 President Of France Sues Citizen Over Billboard Comparing Macron To Hitler (20)
10:44 Top German Court Says Facebook Must Inform Users About Deleting Their Posts Or Suspending Their Account, Explain Why, And Allow Them To Respond (16)
10:44 Superior Court Dumps BS Charges Brought Against New Jersey Homeowner For Her 'Fuck Biden' Signs (20)
03:27 Appeals Court Denies Immunity To University Officials Who Apparently Banned A Christian Student Group Just Because They Didn't Like It (33)
10:45 Judge Tosses Candace Owens's Litigious Attempt To Turn Facebook Fact-Checking Into Defamation (52)
13:35 Streisand Effect Still Works: Vancouver Roofing Company Hit With Negative Reviews After Suing Over A Negative Review (40)
12:01 Senator Klobuchar Proposes An Unconstitutional Law That Would Kill Legions Of People If Trump Were Still President (209)
15:59 Appeals Court Affirms State Trooper Who Responded To An F-Bomb With An Arrest Owes $15k In Legal Fees (15)
12:14 Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians (157)
09:32 Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law) (86)
12:17 Fifth Circuit Sends Anonymous Cop's Lawsuit Againt Protest Organizer To The State's Top Court, Suggests Getting Injured Is Part Of The Job (16)
12:10 Court To Judge Roy Moore: You're Not Defamation-Proof, But This Contract You Signed Sure Is (23)
10:41 Sixth Circuit Says School Board Can't Boot People From Meetings Just Because It Doesn't Like What They're Saying (30)
13:07 Montana Senator Thinks The Third Time Is The Charm For His Anti-Flag Burning Amendment (60)
10:41 Section 230 Continues To Not Mean Whatever You Want It To (19)
10:49 South Florida Cops Ran Images Of Protesters Through State's Facial Recognition Database (7)
05:39 Florida Steps Up To Defend Its Unconstitutional Social Media Law And It's Every Bit As Terrible As You'd Imagine (288)
13:25 DOJ Seizes Iranian News Org Websites; Raising Many Questions (39)
More arrow