senator dianne feinstein is not a fan of freedom

it’s not the flag that needs protection from attack, it’s our eroding freedoms and civil rights that need protection from from unscrupulous and short-sighted politicians.

Dear Mr. Watt:

Thank you for writing to express your opposition to a constitutional amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the American flag. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

Unfortunately, we will have to disagree about this issue. I strongly believe that the American flag holds a unique position in our society as the most important and universally recognized symbol that unites us as a nation. The flag — as a symbol of our nationhood — can and should be respected and protected from attack.

from who, what? people protesting the actions of the government? is the FREE SPEECH and expression of a symbolic act really such a threat to our government that you feel the need to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION?

Beyond my personal convictions, many Californians have told me of their desire for such protection for our flag. Indeed, California had a flag protection statute from 1929 until 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the flag protection statutes of 47 states and the Federal government.

update: our poor, beleaguered supreme court, that branch of the government explicitly designed to keep overzealous politicians in check, also declared in 1954 the doctrine of “separate but equal” to be “inherently unequal.” hotly contested supreme court decisions should be treated with the utmost respect, not bandied about as if ammunition in a war against the judiciary.

The authority for a nation to protect its central symbol of unity was considered constitutional for two centuries. It was only a decade ago that a narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court said otherwise. At this point, it seems clear that the only way to protect the American flag is to amend the Constitution to authorize Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag.

another way to protect the flag would be to protect the freedom it is a symbol for, by repealing the patriot act.

In the 108th Congress I was an original cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 4 (S. J. Res. 4) which would have done just that. I will continue to pursue the topic in the 109th Congress.

Please know that I value your opinion, but on this issue I am afraid we will remain in disagreement. However, I greatly appreciate your input and hope that you will continue to share your views with me. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:43am
General

relatedposts

14 comments

name
blog (optional)
comment
jackie
7/13/05 11:16am

ok, so…our politicians like to say that the terrorists are making no headway in destroying our way of life by killing our citizens. In fact, they are making our patriotism stronger, right? but if we step on the flag, which, theoretically, is a less important symbol of our nation than the actual living *people in it*, then america is being irreparably harmed? huh?

Alice
7/13/05 11:31am

Yeah….she just doesn’t want to have someone photoshop her in front of a flag-burning. I actually have mixed feelings on the topic because it brings up the question of cross-burning as a “free speech” in my mind. So constitutional amendment-wise, I’m against the legislation (because I don’t think we should be amending the consititution just because we want to override the Supreme Court), but I do think that if people’s “free speech” actions incite violence against a group of people, they should be held accountable for that. I dunno…I have to think on it some more.

justin
7/13/05 12:18pm

I’d be just as much opposed to a constitutional amendment against burning crosses. If the KKK got a license to march or whatever, and wanted to carry a burning cross with them as they went, more power to them. I agree that it’s quite a different gesture to pound a cross in someone’s yard and set it on fire.

In a way I want to believe that in a democracy I am the government, or a part of it, I own the government, and participate in the government. I should have the freedom to burn a symbol of the government in effigy if I so choose.

The democratic government I envision would openly WELCOME, if not CRAVE such feedback.

A constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of the flag is tantamount to criminalizing protest speech.

Alice
7/13/05 2:12pm

So I agree….especially since I don’t see the harm burning a flag could cause someone (doesn’t really incite fear like the cross burning). But as I said previously, I guess the issue isn’t with the “to burn or not to burn” but instead with the “constitutional amendment” issue. And what I hate is that all of a sudden, things that we all assumed were protected (e.g. rights of minorities, free speech, etc.) is under attack and it’s the constitution that’s being used to scare the bejesus out of us. It’s interesting because to me, the constitution is like the bible, and I don’t go around trying to change the bible.

Cavegrrl
7/13/05 2:41pm

This is such a fuggin old issue. Fienstein is such a prune butt. I remember drawing a cartoon about this issue in highschool in the late 80’s. The toon depicted a flag tightly enclosed by a tall fence topped with barbed wire. Underneath the drawing I wrote, “Endangered Species.” I won some big award for this toon because really you can’t clearly identify which position it occupies in the flag burning debate.
I do know where I stand on this. I think we should be able to burn it —and shit on it too, for that matter. It’s a flippin’ SYMBOL. It’s not the real thing. This whole issue reminds me of the debate regarding porn and objectification.

We seem to forget that the meaning of a symbol is created by us. The viewer/reader assigns meaning to the flag, the naked body engaged in an act, a word, whatever. The meaning of the symbol is totally open and only acheived by agreement. Feinbutt’s position basically means to me that she doesn’t think I should have the power to read the flag any other way than what is allowed and maintained by the ruling body. FUCK that. I see what’s really going on and that symbol needs to be open to the debate and complexity of what’s going on around it–not protected from that debate–SHIT!

Hurray for having the cajones to protect the KKK’s rights, as well. I’m not into that crap, but I’m into protecting the right to freely discuss things…even fucked up shit like that….we can’t get anywhere without dialogue and debate.

Recently our HR department gave us all little flags in celebration of the fourth. I made damn sure tho tear the thing off the little stick and pin it on the back of my jacket–UPSIDE DOWN.

It felt good to know I could do this and it was my little moment of patriotism…Seriously!

Kansas
7/13/05 3:38pm

The whole debate makes me wonder if I was disposing of a worn, old, and generally shabby looking flag in the proper way–by burning–would that be against the law?

And just to note, the American political system is not actually a democracy, it’s a republic.

justin
7/13/05 4:28pm

Recently our HR department gave us all little flags in celebration of the fourth. I made damn sure tho tear the thing off the little stick and pin it on the back of my jacket–UPSIDE DOWN.

cavegrrl, aka donutgrrl, you’ve exposed yourself! i also happen to work for a company where someone clandestinely put little flags on everyone’s desk before the 4th of july weekend.

Donutgrrl
7/14/05 11:05am

you knew it was me already, dork–don’t play dumb!

robin
7/14/05 6:35pm

Yeah, Kansas, it is kind of a mental disconnect when we realize that the hallowed, proper way to dispose of a flag is to burn it….and yet these uber-patriots want to ban burning. They’d rather the flags get heinously tattered and torn, while flying from SUVs and shit, apparently.

I find it weird in general, since I’ve always imagined the ritual burning of something to be a means of purification, regeneration, etc. A good thing, rather than a bad thing….except for, you know, arson and stuff.

justin
7/14/05 10:11pm

in reading over senator feinstein’s email, i found yet another statement to take issue with—her attitude that this amendment is intended to remove a freedom of speech granted to the american people by the supreme court in 1989’s texas v. johnson, thus restoring things to the way they were.

as cavegrrl mentions, this is an old issue and not one that i want my elected representatives focusing on. but if i don’t fight when the small freedoms are eroded, i may have a harder time doing so when it comes to more egregious legislation.

Ruby
7/18/05 7:35am

I have been really shocked at and disapointed at Feinstein’s positions on civil liberties. Since she’s your senator now (which still beats ours in NC any day) you should bug her about the Patriot Act. She has sponsired one the reauthorization bills and it kind of sucks.

You might dig these resources just for bloggers at the ACLU.

marcia
8/19/05 3:16pm

Has there been a spate of flag burnings lately? Well, has there been a spate of flag burnings in the United States, the only place the amendment would effect?

Lascivious Polyphony » Dear Ms. Feinstein, Update
8/4/06 11:17am

[...] Justinsomnia did a good job of breaking down several of the key elements in her response, and is worth viewing if you are interested in the subject. [...]

daskapitalistschieße
7/19/07 7:34pm

Fineswine cheeses me like no other, except her Emperor Palpatine of menopausal dumbf***kery-Nancy Pelosi. Long live the Bear Flag Republic!!! Long Live the Constiution!!! Ron Paul 2008!!! Sic Semper Tyrannis!!!!