| THIS SEARCH | THIS DOCUMENT | GOTO |
| Next Hit | Forward | New Search |
| Prev Hit | Back | Home Page |
| Hit List | Full Display | Help |
| Contents Display | ||
| Full Display |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Table of Contents
Beginning
I. SUMMARY
II. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
III. DISCUSSION
A. THE FLAG IS AN IMPORTANT SYMBOL OF A DIVERSE COUNTRY
1. FOUNDING FATHERS EQUATED THE AMERICAN FLAG WITH THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE NATION
A. INTENT OF JAMES MADISON AND THOMAS JEFFERSON
2. A SHORT HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN FLAG
A. EARLY COLONIAL AND REVOLUTIONARY FLAGS
B. THE BETSY ROSS STORY
C. ORIGINS OF THE NICKNAME `OLD GLORY'
3. CONGRESS AND THE FLAG
4. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FLAG
B. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FLAG TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AMERICA'S WELCOME HOME
C. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS THE ONLY LEGAL MEANS OF PROTECTING THE FLAG FROM PHYSICAL DESECRATION
1. ANALYSIS OF S. 982, THE FLAG PROTECTION AND FREE SPEECH ACT OF 1997
D. S.J. RES. 40 IS AN APPROPRIATE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY
1. S.J. RES. 40 DOES NOT `TRUMP' THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR OTHERWISE LIMIT FREE SPEECH
2. CONGRESS HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE FLAG
3. S.J. RES. 40 WILL RESTORE TO CONGRESS THE POWER TO ENACT A STATUTE PROHIBITING THE PHYSICAL DESECRATION OF THE AMERICAN...4. THE TERMS `PHYSICAL DESECRATION' AND `FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES' ARE PRECISE ENOUGH FOR INCLUSION IN THE CONSTITUTION
5. POSSIBLE EXAMPLES OF LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING S.J. RES. 40
6. PARADE OF HORRIBLES ARE AN ILLUSION
7. THE FLAG PROTECTION AMENDMENT IS NO PRECEDENT WHATSOEVER FOR ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR STATUTE
8. THE AMERICAN FLAG DESERVES LEGAL PROTECTION REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF FLAG DESECRATIONS IN RECENT YEARS
9. A `CONTENT NEUTRAL' CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT IS WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE
IV. VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE
V. TEXT OF S.J. RES. 40
`ARTICLE --
VI. COST ESTIMATE
VII. REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
VIII. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS LEAHY, KENNEDY, KOHL, FEINGOLD, DURBIN, AND TORRICELLI
I. INTRODUCTION
A. THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES IS A SOURCE OF PRIDE FOR THE ENTIRE NATION
B. ISOLATED FLAG BURNINGS DO NOT DIMINISH THE UNWAVERING RESPECT AMERICANS HOLD FOR THE UNITED STATES FLAG
C. THE SACRIFICES OF AMERICAN VETERANS TRANSCEND MERE SYMBOLS
D. WE BEST HONOR OUR VETERANS BY HONORING OUR PROMISES TO THEM
II. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY AMENDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY
A. THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE AMENDED ONLY UNDER VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES
B. THE PROPONENTS HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT INCIDENTS OF FLAG BURNING JUSTIFY AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
C. THE PROPONENTS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A CLEAR COURSE OF ACTION THAT CAN ONLY BE PUT IN PLACE BY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
D. EXISTING LEGAL AND SOCIAL SANCTIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO DETER AND PUNISH FLAG BURNING
III. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 40 IS AN UNPRECEDENTED RESTRICTION ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS
A. THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AS THE CORNERSTONE OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM IN THIS NATION, PROTECTS ABOVE ALL THAT EXPRESSION WITH...B. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN AND DO ANSWER UNPOPULAR SPEECH WITH TOLERANCE, CREATIVITY AND STRENGTH
C. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 40 WOULD DIMINISH THE RIGHTS WE CURRENTLY ENJOY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
E. THERE WAS A LONG HISTORY OF SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE PROTECTING UNPOPULAR SPEECH CONNECTED TO THE FLAG PRIOR TO JOHNSON...F. FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS INDIVISIBLE
G. EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ARE APPLICABLE TO INSTANCES OF FLAG BURNING
IV. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 40 IS VAGUE AND ITS EFFECT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS IS UNCERTAIN
A. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS OR CLARITY ON THE DEFINITION OF A FLAG
B. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS OR CLARITY TO THE DEFINITION OF DESECRATION AND IT INEVITABLY WILL PROHIBIT MUCH INNOCENT EXPRESSION
C. THE DIFFICULTY THAT ATTENDS A STATUTORY APPROACH TO FLAG BURNING WOULD REMAIN EVEN AFTER A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
V. CONCLUSION
IX. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR BIDEN
I. THE FLAG DESERVES PROTECTION
II. ANY EFFORT TO PROTECT THE FLAG SHOULD BE VIEWPOINT NEUTRAL
III. S.J. RES. 31 IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED
A. THE AMENDMENT IS NOT VIEWPOINT NEUTRAL
III. CONCLUSION
X. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
| THIS SEARCH | THIS DOCUMENT | GOTO |
| Next Hit | Forward | New Search |
| Prev Hit | Back | Home Page |
| Hit List | Full Display | Help |
| Contents Display | ||