I actually ran across this 2005 proposed law browsing through my archives looking for a Bill Moyers statement about flag pins (which I didn't find)
But: "I want to know if you believe in what the American flag stands for?"
Specifically, how does Clinton reconcile the 1st Amendment's protection of political expression with her co-sponsorship of the Flag Protection Act of 2005?
That act, introduced by Utah Republican Robert Bennett, would have made it a federal crime punishable by up to 1 year in prison for a person to destroy or damage any object "that would be taken to be a [U.S.] flag by the reasonable observer" when such an act would be "reasonably likely" to breach the peace—in a protest, in other words.
[snip]
Supporters have portrayed these seemingly contradictory positions as evidence of Clinton's skill as a lawmaker—undermining a dreadful yet popular amendment by promoting what looked like a compromise but was actually a rope-a-dope law doomed to being struck down by the courts if it had passed.
Critics have seen in Clinton's flag fandango an exquisite illustration of principle-free politics: a star-spangled carnival of cynical pandering.
Clinton's positions were "a simple attempt to have it both ways," editorialized The New York Times, which opposes flag-burning bans. The American Legion, which supports such bans, blasted Clinton for using a "tired political ploy."
If we must obsess about manufactured issues having to do with the flag—and it appears that, yes, we must—then this one's worth a follow-up at the next debate.
[From Change of Subject - Observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades | Chicago Tribune | Blog]
Or not, let us dispense with all trivialities, and try to get our country back on track, into the 21st CE, and among the civilized nations again.
