What is Dean's stance on the flag issue?

[jumptheshadow]

How do Gephardt and Edwards stand on the issue?

Over at Salon, Joe Conason justifiably roasted Wesley Clark on the flag amendment yesterday. Today, he puts Howard Dean on the grill.

Conason, who has consistently and courageously been on the mark about the Bush administration, continues to hold our candidates' feet to the fire about the flag amendment. And he is right. A stance against the flag amendment is a fundamental defense against the erosion of First Amendment freedom.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/11/14/friday/index.html

If you don't have a subscription get a free day pass.

~ snip ~

Several readers distressed by Wesley Clark's remarks supporting the flag desecration amendment wrote in to declare that they had dropped their support of the retired general in favor of Howard Dean. But others pointed out what I didn't know about Dean's own record on this issue. Two years ago, as governor of Vermont, he brokered a legislative resolution that urged Congress to "take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag." While a bit vague, that sounded much like an endorsement of the Constitutional amendment.

Around that time, Dean rather pompously declared that politicians should declare their positions on the flag issue before voters went to the polls in 2002. That requirement didn't apply to Dean himself, as he "coyly" told the Rutland Herald, because he wasn't on the ballot that year. So now that he is running for president, the candidate who prides himself in speaking bluntly should explain the limits of his support for the First Amendment -- in plain English.

~ snip ~

Come on, Howard, give us an impassioned speech about First Amendment rights. On further, Happy Hour edit: Come on, John Kerry, give us an impassioned speech about First Amendment rights.

[blm]

1. Dean agrees with the GOP congress and wants the flag protected legally,

but doesn't want an amendment.

Uh, Howie...that still means jailing flag protestors.

Glad Conason is catching on to Deanspeak. Straight talker, my ass!

Q) Are you a member of the DLC?

Dean) I read some of their material.

Truth) I was DLC while governor, they only list current office holders.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Which Is Unconstitutional

Do we protect KKK rallies because they're fun to watch?

[wtmusic]

10. Source?

[DrFunkenstein]

12. On Which Issue?

n/t

[wtmusic]

14. Both

[wtmusic]

16. Thought so. More anti-Dean blather

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
:silly:

[Renew Deal]

37. Proof Dean is for a flag burning law. He "supports" VT resolution.

We fought this out this week already. There are threads about it but here it is again.

MONTPELIER — Gov. Howard Dean said he doesn’t support a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, but is comfortable with suggesting it to Congress as the Vermont Legislature did last week.

“I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment,” Dean said Monday. “A constitutional amendment should be passed only in very rare circumstances.”

He said that he supported the resolution that passed both the House and Senate last week by wide margins. It voiced support for protecting the flag and suggested a constitutional amendment as one possible option, but stopped short of calling on Congress to take that step.

While the language in the resolution allowed both sides to claim victory in the contentious fight, it has also allowed some politicians like Dean to argue both sides of the issue.

<snip>

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/40656

On Edit: w4rma found the threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=712825&mesg_id=713374&page=

[SahaleArm]

11. It's a cop out.

Any law against flag burning violates the first amendment. The only way to make flag burning illegal, is thorugh a constitutional amendment. For all the candidates it's a trap, a position from which the Republicans will demogogue. For Dean the problem is larger due to his base and the confedrate flag flap. If he supports the amendment he may lose some of his base. If he doesn't he'll be portrayed as a American flag burning, confederate flag waving candidate. Although I do not agree with Clark on flag burning, I appreciate his candor. I still would like to know his reasons for supporting the amendment.

[HFishbine]

15. Has the Supreme Court ruled?

I know there has been no federal ban, but does anybody know if any state law against flag burning ever made it to the SCOTUS?

[HFishbine]

18. Why, yes they have.

Found the answer to my own question. The SCOTUS has ruled that flag burning is Constitutionally protected speech. So any discussion of flag bruing laws is moot. The only question that remains in play is a Constitutional amendment.

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/enlight/flag.htm

[SahaleArm]

26. Correct, everything else is political maneuvering *nm*

*nm*

[Scott Lee]

35. Your nose is growing

First of all, show me a single piece of "flag legislation" that Dean supports (show proof) which carries mandatory prison time.

Second, lets have a link to a direct quote where Dean claims only to have "read some of their (DLC) material" and denied ever being a member.

Thirdly, here is a cloth to wipe the lying egg off your face when you cannot produce one and two.

[TLM]

40. BLM I still do not understand why you attack Dean for previously being DLC

when your guy Kerry is CURRENTLY a member of the DLC.

[blm]

41. Kerry maintained lefty positions while Dean pulled the party to the right.

Something that too few care to examine about Dean and his actual record of governance.

[mzmolly]

50. Kerry said he want's to punch flag burners in the face...

but not create new laws.

Ah, the voice of 'reason' prevails...Hey wasn't he calling Dean a hothead? ;)

[La_Serpiente]

2. My take on it

I think that is a politically safe way of approaching it. The US Supreme Court has already ruled in the mid 1990s that to make a law banning flag burning is unconstitutional. Even Scalia voted in the majority of that decision.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. He wants a LAW

not an amendment to protect the flag. Either way mean you break the law and go to jail/pay a fine. :(

[MGKrebs]

9. Flat out false.

"protecting the flag" does not have to mean goung to jail or even paying a fine.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. What Does It Mean?

I'd just like some to shoot straight with me.

[blm]

17. Protecting the flag with a law means punishment will be set.

You think they intend to send them to bed without supper?

[SahaleArm]

27. It could be a civil offense.

A nominal fine; but it can't be a law due to the 1st amendment.

[HFishbine]

32. No, it cannot

There cannot be a fine without a law, and the Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a law against flag burning. As noted above, any disucssion of right or wrong, law or no law is political posturing. The only avenue left is a constitutional amemendment, on which a president would have no vote (although the VP might, to break a tie).

[TLM]

43. You burn a flag and you can be fined

for starting a fire in a public place... most cities have laws against starting open fires... regardless of what you burn.

[SahaleArm]

46. My answer assumed an ammendment. *nm*

*nm*

[Scott Lee]

36. Punishment like what? And you still havent provided proof...

Damn, how long can that nose get?

[blm]

38. Did you bother to read the original post?

I suppose Conason is lying about Dean?

Also...You call me a liar when I post an article that interviews Dean on his NRA questionnaire and notice that race relations is not mentioned at all as Dean claimed. You read the article, where did I lie?

[TLM]

45. Please cite where Joe said what you claim

about the law and jail time.

Since the fact is the resolution passed was nothing more than a staement of support for congress to pass some level of flag protection.

"I suppose Conason is lying about Dean?"


No, you are lying about what Conason said. If you want to lie about Dean , do it, but don't try to hide behind someone as respectable as Conason.


"Also...You call me a liar when I post an article that interviews Dean on his NRA questionnaire and notice that race relations is not mentioned at all as Dean claimed. You read the article, where did I lie?""

You lied when you claimed that Dean's staement on the flag was in defence of the NRA and is position on guns. Yet the quote clearly shows Dean said nothing about guns or the NRA in that statement. Also the athor clearly notes that in the interview Dean addressed issues of why the dems lost the south with gore. Dean;s statement was used as it has been used for 11 months, in reference to reaching out to the south.

[blm]

49. The GOP idea of flag protection means some form of PUNISHMENT.

You NEVER posted one word from that article that points to race relations. NOT ONE WORD.

And if there HAD been one word spoken about race relations, Dean's campaign would have asked the reporter to release the transcript from the whole interview to prove it. But, he didn't, did he?

[TLM]

42. WHy keep pushing this BS, BLM

The resolution passd in VT was not a law with jail time or anything like that... was was nothing more than a staement of support from the state to congress for some level of flag protection.

[blm]

44. What is "some level of flag protection" from a GOP congress?

Puhleeze. Have you introduced the truck to the turnips?

[TLM]

48. Depends on the congress...

However the fact of the mater is that you were lying, again, about the nature of this resolution in order to attack Dean.

[HFishbine]

19. Can't be a law

The Supreme Court has ruled that such laws are unconstituional. Only option left is a constitutional amendment.

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/enlight/flag.htm

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. Then my question is

what does Dean do to protect the flag? He wants it protected, not with an amendment and there can be no law. How exactly does he intend to protect it with neither a law or ammendment? Hmmm.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. What Constitutes A Compromise On The First Amendment?

MONTPELIER — Gov. Howard Dean is working quietly to try to broker a compromise in the prickly debate over a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration.

“I think this is a no-brainer; I think there is a compromise to be had and I’ve certainly made that clear to people who are involved behind the scenes,” Dean said during his weekly press conference Friday.

“I do think the Legislature should pass a resolution,” he said. “I think the public is going to want to know where people are standing in the 2002 election.”

But Dean is not apparently holding himself to that standard. He refused to reveal his position on amending the U.S. Constitution banning flag desecration, noting coyly that he would not be a candidate in 2002. He may, however, be a candidate in 2004, if he decides to run for president.

“First of all, I’m sure I’m on record on that at some point in last 10 years,” he said. “Second of all, when you’re trying to engineer a behind-the-scenes compromise it’s best not to be public about what that is.”

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/38411

[TLM]

47. The compromise he was talking about

was in the wording of the resolution that the VT senate/house were trying to pass.

Some wanted to rule out the amendment as an option and some wanted to really push the amendment... that's where Dean mentioned room for compromise.

hat is made clear in the rest of the piece you link to.

Campbell’s original resolution urged Congress to “take appropriate action” to ensure that the flag is respected and that any acts of desecration be “prevented” but at the same time “preserving the integrity of the Bill of Rights.” He proposed it in part because Vermont is the only state not to pass such a resolution to Congress. All the remaining states but Maine have provided a resolution urging a change in the Constitution.

Campbell’s proposal provoked contentious debate in the Senate this year. It passed but not before the Senate voted on a counter proposal calling for an amendment. By a paper-thin margin, the Senate rejected that proposal. Democratic Lt. Gov. Douglas Racine was forced to cast the tie-breaking vote.

The House rejected the Senate’s proposal and sent back a resolution — which is essentially and official recommendation from the Legislature — urging Congress to take steps to amend the Constitution.

The resolution is now before a joint conference committee.

[MIMStigator]

5. Agree that Dean should give a straight answer

Does he want to punish flag burners or not?

[Democrats unite]

6. Which flag?

eom

[jumptheshadow]

7. LOL, you're right

It's hard to keep the flag issues apart these days.

A sign of the times, I guess.

[madfloridian]

20. Oh, my Lord, this is still going on.

Same folks, same rhetoric. It is like Oh Joy, we have another issue to bash with. Goody, goody. Some of the same ones do the same on other boards.

I thought things might calm down here, but they won't. Took some time off and it is still the same. Bash bash bash.

It is like a joy ride going after our own candidates.

This issue could destroy all our candidates one way or the other, and all the other issues that are brought up here day after day after day.

But wait, then the GOP won't have to do it. We have the same people here doing it daily.

[wtmusic]

21. You must be kidding

'This issue could destroy all our candidates?' While we've got soldiers dying daily in an illegal war, our candidates will be destroyed deciding whether someone has the right to burn a goddamn flag?

Get a grip. If someone thinks that a flag-burning amendment is going to start an irreversible erosion of civil rights, or conversely, that someone burning a flag is going to make the US of A crumble into a heap...they're certifiably loony.

This is a bullshit topic being ascribed bullshit importance (just like that OTHER flag issue) by desperate people.

[jumptheshadow]

25. First Amendment rights are a bedrock Democratic issue

And that means that Dean, Clark, Kerry, etc., etc., should support them passionately.

In fact, a source of Clark's major appeal had been his stirring endorsements of dissent.

Where does Howard Dean stand on the issue? Where does John Kerry stand on the issue?

We know where Republican Colin Powell stands:

"The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away."

[KittyWampus]

23. Thank You For Bringing Me Back To Earth

You are right... it is a wedge issue...

[jumptheshadow]

28. What kind of issue is it?

It's a litmus test for somebody who will defend First Amendment rights.

And yes, the RW, who would dearly love to see us living in a one-party, unquestioning nation, will challenge us. That's why Democrats must present a united front and must enlist the aid of groups who will defend our right to free speech.

[jumptheshadow]

29. This is bashing?

This is only bashing if you want to shout somebody down for asking a perfectly legitimate question.

[KittyWampus]

22. Delete

[w4rma]

24. Dean is for a flag burning law/wouldn’t change U.S. Constitution for flag

Dean is for a flag burning law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=693435

Dean wouldn’t change U.S. Constitution for flag
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=693609

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. If a flag-burning law gets passed...

I'm buying a hundred of the motherfuckers and going to DC to have a barbecue on the Capitol steps.

Dean is wrong on this issue, sorry.

[jumptheshadow]

31. I would never burn a flag in anger

But I would passionately defend anybody's right to freech speech.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of free speech...

So the right-wing wants to pass an amendment to curtail free speech. They want to change our constitution to curtail free speech.

Our Democratic candidates should be united in their passion to protect free speech in this nation.

(By the way, if such an amendment is passed, how would it be enforced objectively? Wouldn't it open up a Pandora's Box when they try to enforce it?)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. Dean is wrong on this one.

The only way burning the flag should be banned is if it is burned in a mannner that creates a fire hazard that endangers the population at large. (E.g, the flag is attached to drapes inside a movie theater, or laying on top of dry tender in the middle of a national forest)

Basically this issue is a bogus one, created by politicians to divide the populace through appealing to their base patriotic insincts.

Importance to the national discussion (scale of 1-10)= 1.

[Beaker]

39. and so is Clark, so it evens out...BUT-

I'm willing to cut Wes a little slack on his POV due to the whole military career thing...HOWEVER-
despite what some of the zealots like to spew- NOBODY has ever fought and/or died to protect the flag- it's what the flag represents that they fight for, and one of the things it represents is the right to burn it in protest. I don't get why that's so hard for so many to understand.