Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Flag Desecration Amendment
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Potential interpretations of the amendment== In 2005, the [[First Amendment Center]] published a report titled "Implementing a Flag-Desecration Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: An end to the controversy ... or a new beginning?"<ref name="First">{{cite web|url=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/FirstReport.Flag_.Desecration_FINAL.pdf|title=Implementing a Flag-Desecration Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: An end to the controversy . . . or a new beginning?|first=Robert|last=Corn-Revere|publisher=[[First Amendment Center]]|date=2005}}</ref> The report pointed out that the effect of the proposed amendment would likely be challenged on collateral matters in ways that will require the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, to parse the exact meaning of ambiguous terms contained therein. The focus of the report was on the meanings that would be assigned to the phrases, "physical desecration" and "flag of the United States". [[File:Flag of the United States specification.svg|thumb|right|350px|The amendment might be interpreted as being limited to flags that meet the exact specifications for the United States flag laid out in federal law, as in the above image; see [[Flag of the United States]] for further details regarding these specifications.]][[File:J20 corporate flag dc.jpg|thumb|right|350px|It remains an open question whether flags such as this one, which contains corporate logos in place of the fifty stars, would fall under the amendment.]] The phrase "physical desecration" might be open to various interpretations concerning the uncertainty of the context of desecration. For example, uncertainty exists over whether the term includes the wearing of the flag as clothing, as a tattoo, or flying a flag upside-down. It is uncertain what can be interpreted as "physical desecration". Does it require that the flag be physically damaged, or made to appear damaged? It is also unclear whether "virtual flag desecration" (which could be defined as an artistic depiction of flag desecration, a computerized simulation of flag desecration, or burning any object which has a flag on it) would be subject to the amendment. There is also the question whether the perpetrator of such an act is required to have a [[specific intent]] to "desecrate" to be prosecuted. The Report of the 108th Congress, in proposing this amendment, stated: <blockquote>... 'desecrate' means deface, damage, or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action...</blockquote> This seems to suggest that the amendment will apply only to acts where the actor intends offense. Since the amendment would allow prohibition against only "the flag of the United States", it could be construed as only applying to flags that are the ''property'' of the United States government, as opposed to personal or private property. This language could also be interpreted as being limited to flags that meet the exact specifications for the United States flag laid out in federal law. It is unclear what effect the amendment would have with respect to former flags of the United States, such as the 48-star flag that preceded the admission of [[Alaska]] and [[Hawaii]], or the original 13-star [[Betsy Ross flag]], or how far from the traditional definition of a flag a symbol could deviate (for example, having orange stripes instead of red) before falling out of the ambit of the amendment's jurisdiction. The First Amendment Center concluded that the Supreme Court was likely to interpret this language narrowly, resulting in decisions that would not satisfy either proponents or opponents of the proposed amendment. These questions would necessarily await the interpretative role of the courts, and such a process would likely require several years for the resolution of each issue.<ref name="First"/>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)