I really like Clark, but I have one BIG problem with him.

[Brotherjohn]

Clark favors an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw flag-burning.

This position presents a real conundrum to me. Of course, I'd support him over Bush in a sec if he gets the nomination. And if he did not hold this position, I would be enthusiastic about his candidacy. But this one issue might make me support another Dem candidate.

(BTW, I also just watched the smackdown he gave the Fox "news" guy, and really liked the way he handled the obvious implication the guy was trying to make, despite the denials)(http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?4908&FOX_News_Live&Setting%20the%20Record%20Straight&wvx-300)

Some will probably say that this is an inconsequential issue, and that flag-burning is so rare that such an amendment will have little effect on our lives. But to me, an act of protest such as burning the American flag, while most may rightfully find it insulting or repugnant, is central to the principle of free speech embodied in the First Amendment.

Unlike most of the Bushies more instrusive Patriot Act provisions which we rightfully criticize so much here at DU, such an amendment would not be reviewable by a court. The Senate has been getting closer and closer to passing such an amendment (the House has in the past), and most state houses have also indicated they would ratify it. If Clark were elected president, we would likely see such an amendment added to the Constitution.

I do not take this lightly. This amendment in and of itself would make the Constitution a joke, a massive contradiction. The amendment itself would be unconstitutional, which is why no such law has ever passed constitutional muster when challenged in court. The very document that guarantees free speech, particularly political speech, in this country would be amended to specifically outlaw a form of political speech.

Save the arguments about it not technically being "speech". Courts at every level throughout the country have consistently ruled that the first amendment does not apply solely to verbal "speech" or the written word, but to actions of protest as well. The reason is simple: what's behind the First Amendment is the principle of being able to protest one's government, not just the act of verbalizing that protest.

Also save the arguments about this form of protest possibly causing unrest and riots because it would "inflame" onlookers. Please! The First Amendment rightfully allows Nazis and Klansmen to march. These acts are extremely inflammatory (no pun intended), yet we allow them... often with police protection supplied by the government! The action of flag-buring is a purely political statement and if someone who does not like that statement cannot control their base impulses, it is they who should be penalized, not the protestor.

This is not trivial. I have real reservations about supporting a candidate who supports a flag-buring amendment. Free speech is paramount in my book. It trumps every other issue.

[AmericanDem]

1. He only favors it if...

"that is what the American people want"

[bryant69]

5. Yeah, but

We have individual rights specifically to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. I mean if 90% of my neighbors think that Harry Potter is evil and supports witchcraft, do you think they should be allowed to ban it so I can't read it?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[grannylib]

2. He said he would support it IF the American people would support it

I agree, freedom of speech is a crucial issue, and I would much rather see the flag burned than the constitution trashed!
But I think there is room for discussion here, I don't think he would push for it unless a majority of citizens seemed to want it...
What's the conventional wisdom on the public opinion of that?

[Guaranteed]

8. I've seen polls saying that most people favor it.

However, the Constitution is there, and, specifically, the First Amendment is there, to protect the rights of the minority. I don't care whether or not the American people support this- that's no justification. It's wrong either way.

[eileen_d]

3. Well, I'm saving my arguments!

:hi:

[Guaranteed]

4. I agree....

that's my big problem with him, too. I don't like people messing around with the First Amendment.

[chimpymustgo]

6. Only ONE difference of opinion? You're in great shape!

Is there any candidate that you agree with on EVERY issue?

[Renew Deal]

7. Do we need to rehash this. So does Kucinich and Gep. Dean favors a law

as well as Edwards. Kerry wants to "punch people in the face." None of the candidates are going to be ideologically perfect. None of them can actually pass or sign an amendment so it is out of their hands and this isn't on their agendas.

[Brotherjohn]

15. Yes. I think it's important (I wasn't privy to earlier discussions here..

... on the matter).

I do not think this is trivial. We are talking about the single most important core principle (IMHO) of our country. Kucinich and Gephardt's favoring of such an amendment also put up a red flag for me.

As far as Dean, it is entirely different to say you support a "law". That's been done, and if that law cannot pass consitutional muster, it will inevitable be struck down. It's a bit wishy-washy, but I can forgive a candidate for being wishy-washy on an issue more than taking the wrong side altogether. I don't necessarily expect a candidate to take a stong stand in defense of such a right when it is politically charged and unpopular, and, as you say, it isn't something the president really has control over. But I DO NOT expect a candidate to clearly take the wrong stand on a first amendment issue. I expect him to take a strong stand in defense of free speech, or at least not a strong stand against it.

As far as Kerry, he did the former. His position is right on the money and not wishy-washy at all. Yes, he may want to punch someone doing it in the face, but he also realizes that one of the reasons he served his country was to defend that guy's right to burn that flag. He forcefully and clearly stated, I think, his opposition to such an amendment.

As far as the other comments here about "what the people want", that doesn't wash for me. A president can't support a degradation of the First Amendment because "it's what the people want". It's up to the president to stand up for these things. While I admit Dean is being wishy-washy (if he supports a "law"), I think Clark is simply making the wrong stand in supporting such an amendment.

All this being said, I don't necessarily think it's a litmus test, even against the other dems (certainly not against Bush, where Clark wins hands down). I also understand it comes from his military background. I'm just saying it's a real concern I have about supporting him in the primaries.

[hilzoy]

25. I agree that it's important

But I also think it's important to note two things. First, about Clark: as Tom Rinaldo pointed out on this thread, he has in general been very strong on civil liberties. And it's not just that his stated positions on civil liberties (other than this one) are good and so forth, but that he has actually done things like stick up for Michael Moore's right to dissent when it was not at all popular to do so, and bring up the right to dissent in almost every speech he has made. For what it's worth, I do moral and political philosophy for a living, and I really think that Clark understands constitutional principles and why they matter, more so (I think) than any other candidate. I see this against that backdrop, and while it's not a position I agree with, his general take on civil liberties makes it a lot easier for me to accept.

Second, it is of course important to consider the other candidates' views on civil liberties. Consider this story from Sept. 2001: http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
which includes the following:

"MONTPELIER — Gov. Howard Dean's call for a “re-evaluation” of some of America's civil liberties following this week's terrorist attacks was criticised Thursday by a Vermont Law School professor.

“Good God,” Vermont Law School Professor Michael Mello said when read the remarks Dean made at a Wednesday news conference. “It's terribly irresponsible for the leader of our state to be saying stuff like that right now.”

Benson Scotch, the head of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was simply too soon after the attacks to engage in the sort of debates Dean called for.

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”

Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — would have to be trimmed, the governor said:

“I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far. Again, I think that's a debate that we will have.” "

[Tatiana]

9. I don't agree with Clark on that issue either.

BUT it's his own personal opinion, and he'd only support it if the majority of Americans did as well. I won't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Renew Deal]

10. And it isn't on his agenda.

He cannot vote for this. All he can say is that he is for or against it. The president does not sign amendments.

[Tatiana]

12. He was honest.

I respect that a lot more than if he had lied about his feelings to get more votes.

[rucky]

13. I Agree...Don't Take The Bait

It's not part of ANY Democrats' platforms. They all answered a question in a debate, but none of our candidates have ever offered it up as anything they're pushing for.

It's another wedge issue brought up by the Repugs....don't take the bait.

[Gulf Coast J]

23. I was about to say the same thing

From a practical point of view, it doesn't matter what the President things of a Constitutional ammendment. I don't think he would sway that many votes if he took one side or the other.

[kentuck]

11. It is not "trivial" but....

It is not a matter of life or death either. It is about free speech but it happens very rarely. I don't think it is a significant issue at this time. Why should we surrender for this issue alone?

[Cocoa]

14. I would encourage you to think differently about this

I think the truth is that there are some issues that are truly of no importance, that do not have real meaning for the country, they're symbolic ones like this one.

If you want to think about this the way you describe above, making it about something real, then I can't stop you, but I think it's a mistake. These things favor the republicans, because the republicans rely on appeals to emotion and patriotism. I think the best thing for the dems to do is just say ok whatever, just take the thing off the table and focus on the real stuff.

[charlie]

19. Since the Supremes have accepted Newdow's case

there'll probably be a ruling on it next summer, just in time for the Repubs to resurrect their perennial campaign tactic, hitting the Dems with God and the flag. With Scalia recusing himself, the decision may well split 4-4, making the No God ruling binding in the 9th court states. As odious as I find these proposals for a flag amendment, a candidate who supports it may enjoy a measure of protection against the coming smear campaign against Godless unpatriotic Democrats.

[HFishbine]

21. That would be true if

it were indeed only one issue. Clark's opinion of a flag-burning amendment combined with his willingness to lobby on behalf of Acxiom to help the government establish unprecedented surveillance dossiers on US citizens has me questioning his respect for civil liberties. I like Clark on other issues, but I'd like to hear him talk more about his views on the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

[mikehiggins]

22. Hey, okay, don't support Clark

And if he does get the nomination, don't vote for him.

Safeguard our civil rights.

Put George Bush back in the White House.

Oh, wait. That's just insane, isn't it?

[jumptheshadow]

16. Well, I agree with you

I'm a fervent Clark supporter and I believe his admirable and passionate defense of First Amendment rights should extend to the flag amendment.

I believe the Democratic platform should unequivocally support all First Amendment rights.

Having said that, I know that Clark can't change course midstream. And I at least trust him more than other candidates who tapdance and play sleight of hand games around the issue. I thoroughly believe he shares the same core American ideals that many of us have.

When he's elected President I believe he will help depolarize this country and that in itself will bolster the cause of freedom of speech.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. It's the biggest issue I disagree with Clark on

I posted my opposition to that position on his web site at the time it was announced. However Clark still has my strong support. I saw him answer a question about his stand at a dinner I attended. He said he was asked by a questioner elsewhere how he stood on the flag amendment to which he said he replied "If that is something that the American people want, I will support it" or something to that effect. He did have the courage of his convictions to add that his personal opinion is in favor of such an amendment, but he left the clear impression that it is not a high priority issue for him or one that he would push or campaign in favor of.

I still am a strong Clark supporter for several reasons. I have had no real difficulty with any other position he has taken and I am wildly supportive of many positions he has taken. I think he is the best man to lead our nation at this time, and I think he is the Democrat most likely to defeat Bush.

But returning to flag question for a second, I also otherwise feel Clark is incredibly strong on the issues of civil liberties and free speech. Read his position paper defining his "New American Patriotism" for examples. Clark was defending Michael Moore's right to make his anti Iraq war statement at the Oscar ceremony live on TV during coveratge of the Iraq invasion within days of that controversy. Clark is also a strong critic of the Patriot Act. He believes dissent is what enables the people of a Democracy to arrive at informed opinions, and that it is our essential liberties that define us as a nation and can't be sacrificed in defence of this nation when it is under attack. Clark thinks of dissent as an obligation, not a right. He also rebuked Alexander Haige's comments that were made moments before Clark's own appearance on the Scarborough Country MSNBC show, this too during the war. Haige was claiming the old "protesters give comfort to the enemy line" and Clark strongly disagreed. He said (among other things) are we supposed to suspend our Democracy when we are at war? Suppose it goes on for a long time, should we postpone elections?

So why on earth does Clark oppoose flag burning? For one thing Clark firmly believes that the flag belongs to all Americans, even the most radical among us. It is not an Establishment symbol to him. He thinks opponents of U.S. policies can proudly wave the flag, and I suspect he would prefer it if we did while we were denouncing this country's policies. Clark said, when I saw him, that he thinks it is important that a diverse nation such as America have a unifying symbol that is above the partisan fray. I think that is the intellectual underpinnings for his stance, but I suspect to a large part it is personal to him. Clark commented on the fact that he had fought under that flag, seen men die fighting under that flag, and had buried men under that flag. He mentioned also handing that flag to the grieving families of soldiers who had died fighting for their country. I think it is just very personal to Clark. He knows how much comfort the American flag has been to people who were proud of their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, for serving and dieing in the Armed Forces. For those people it is painful to see the American Flag "desecrated" and Clark literally feels their pain, he's been there to share it.

So I still oppose his position, but I understand it, and I do believe Clark is strong on civil liberties. In his mind, that is what he was in the military defending, what he spent his life in service to. You really need to listen to Clark speek on that sometime. It's pretty powerful stuff, and I'm convinced of his sincerity.

[Brotherjohn]

18. Thanks all for your comments. I'm much more comfortable with Clark...

... after reading them.

Particulary TR's eloquent statement of why he still supports Clark (and Clark's positions and actions on free speech and dissent otherwise), and the points others made about it being a wedge issue the Repubs are trying to use to draw support away from the Dems. Also the point someone made that at least he was being honest about his convictions, which is likely true, given his military background.

In that light, and in light of the fact that the president does not have any direct say in approving amendments, and Clark has not really indicated he would push for one either (I just hope the Senate holds out), I suppose my support for him has regained some of its enthusiam. As I have said, I like him on nearly all counts, and I think he has a strong chance of defeating Bush if he is the nominee (although i'm still undecided as far as which Dem I like best).

I don't agree with the idea that it's "okay" if it's "what the American people want". But given that it's not really a presidential issue anyway, and that the Repubs will use it in part to decide the presidency, I can even forgive a candidate for an act of "calculated dishonesty" if they say they are for this, but in reality are against it.

[Julien Sorel]

20. My God -- an honest man. Diogenes would be shocked. ;-)

That you approached Clark and this subject with a genuinely open mind knocks me on my butt.

[KamaAina]

24. How are we supposed to dispose of our used flags?

It is a serious breach of flag protocol to place a used flag in the garbage. One is enjoined in the official flag protocol to "dispose of the flag in a dignified manner, preferably by burning."

From what I can see, most of the post-9/11 flag fliers have neatly sidestepped the issue by allowing their flags to fly until they have become the "pink, cream and turquoise".

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Funny you should mention that.

At the moment, most people flying flags don't seem to have the foggiest idea of just what flag etiquette is.

http://www.usflag.org/flag.etiquette.html

Now, considering that this is already the law, and is never enforced,just what would an amendment accomplish?

(A way to enforce the law only against protestors?)

[mlawson]

27. Presidents do not sign amendments, neither can they veto them.

So it's a matter, here, of a President Clark *maybe* pushing such an amendment, but no more than that. And I really doubt he would do that, once in office.

But if you are worried about the First Amendment, imagine how much damage a second bush term coudl do to it! What is more important here?

[IronLionZion]

28. Let it go

The flag stands for America, it does not stand for our government or the worthless piece of shit that is George W. Bush.

I tell you what, if you want to burn it then go to Canada or Mexico and burn it. Come back when you feel better.

This is a rather silly reason to turn your back on an otherwise fantastic candidate.