If your school or non-profit organization is looking for a web-based paperless voting system to run your prom court, student council, or board elections, you should consider Ecoballot. It's easy, fast, and inexpensive. Best of all, it's an environmentally-friendly way to reduce paper usage at your school.
Flag-Burning Comments: December 1995

cristina todd writes:

I admit, the U.S. should not be a nation about symbols, but about freedom and rights. However, people have symbols to represent those precious things. The flag is a symbol of what the American ideal is. Granted, America is not perfect. However, the American Spirit is perfect, and the flag is the symbol of that spirit. When one burns the flag, it burns not just a piece of cloth, but the Spirit of America. The flag has always held a special place in my heart and I have always held it in the highest respect.

matt collins writes:

Glad I found this page. I am writing a paper for a media law class in defense of flag burning. One of the most important aspects of our First Amendment rights is to protest and speak against the government. Isn't that what our "founding fathers" would want. Wasn't the revolution about stopping oppressive governments. Doesn't the U.S. government support countries with their revolution to break the chains of oppression.

Well I guess the government and the people of this country forgot what freedom is about because if you can't burn a flag in protest of your discontent with the government then our freedoms that our beloved constitutuion stands for our just parchment under glass.

David Thornton writes:

Free speech is a right, not a privilage.

Judy Ann Henry writes:

It's nice to see lots of others who recognize that this is indeed an issue that touches our basic freedoms.

I've always believed that freedom of speech and association are the bedrock of a truly democratic political system--as that trite but true quote says: "I may not agree with what he says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it."

I agree. Flag burning is pretty stupid, like carrying coffins in parades, but the response it provokes proves that it is a very powerful message. The individuals who do it are saying they believe the American systems is either (1) deserving of contempt, or (2) being destroyed. Either way, those who object to the action are insisting that an idea should not be publicly expressed. This is the antithesis of the American philosophy.

During the Vietnam War, I took a lot of heat from my fellow anti-ware demonstrators for objecting to their flag burning on the grounds that it undermined our primary objective (convincing other people the US should never have been there and needed to get out). I still believe that less heat and more light was needed. Later, I also caught a lot of disparagement for supporting the right of race-obsessed fools to march in Skokie.

I could talk for hours about the subject. Freedom, to have any meaning, must include the right of any individual to express unpopular concepts--especially unpopular concepts. This concept seems to elude most people, whatever their political beliefs.

Still, my belief in democracy was reinforced when this amendment went down to defeat. Clearly, the system is working even though it appears to be crashing into ruins.

I'd be interested in seeing you start a home page, too, on the subject of the balanced budget amendment and the line item veto, and the threat those ideas pose to the concept of balance of powers.

Anyway, thanks! It's nice to know there are still some thinking people out there. I'd appreciate being referred to any newsgroups or home pages dealing with constitutional issues. I get the feeling lately that we've misplace the Bill of Rights.

Jeff Green writes:

Of course, with all the problems in this country today you would think that there would be more important things to do than to limit free speech and the multiple expressions of same.

Too bad our 'leaders' in Washington spend so much time pandering to those who can barely read and write, and less time to those of us who actually want to move our nation forwards, not backwards.

You are indeed fighting the good fight. Keep it going.

Doug Mowbray writes:

oct 24 is the 50th anniversary of the u.n. and is also the day after i turn 18. i plan to burn a flag here at my college to show my feelings for this ridiculous ammendment proposal, the fact the we are the babysitters fro the world, and the fact that i just turned 18. i hope not to get arrested, but if i do, there will be alot that will come out of it

A pissed of citizen (who wishes to remain anonymous) writes:

To Whom it may concer(I hope more than less) This america that I have grown to love is fading fast cause delinquents who do not have respect for anything. Think of how much our country is like a parent. It will protect you from outside evils. It will give you money to borrow if your broke. If you have no job it will assign you a sum of money to help get you back on your feet. Their is always someone to talk to if you have a problem be it a cop,lawyer,doctor,etc. Do we burn our mothers quilt that she made for you? I don't think so. Grow up you people. Life is not going to be perfect. These liberal attitudes are repulsive and childish. Get a life.

Lois Fundis writes:

I just found your page because someone had mentioned it in a letter to the editor in the Oct.30 issue of The Nation. We don't have Netscape running yet so I couldn't see the actual/virtual flag but that's OK --despite the fact that I *was* a student in 1968 and opposed the war in 'Nam I am more interested in the abstract issue of should there be an amendment to prevent/enable prosecution of flag burning than I am in any actual act of that sort.

wish I could say I can't believe some of the hate mail you've received, but I can. I think your answers to them are pretty good -- this is a highly emotional issue to a lot of folks, not a logicane at all.

One thing: I have always found it hard to believe that anyone died or is willing to die for the flag itself. For the country it stands for, maybe. For the ideals (freedom) of that country, yes. But not a piece of cloth! Pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth is bad enough... I think the Jehovah's Witnesses are on the right track when they call it idolatry.

Now people are telling us it's the design of that piece of cloth -- even printed on a piece of paper or reproduced on the WWW -- that is sacred. Give me a break, folks.

There was a cartoon -- maybe you have it on your cartoon site already; I wasn't able to look -- in New Republic a few months ago about freedom of religion/prayer in schools. A man asked another man if he thought they should amend the First Commandment. (Now that I think about this maybe it was on the flag issue!)

Anyway, hang in there. WE shall all hang together, or most assuredly w shall all hang separately, as Ben Franklin said, even before the flag was created.

Aron Kay writes:

I took part in the demonstration in 1984 in Dallas, Tx. during the Repcon which led to the Supreme Court decision wwhich decided in favor of Joey Johnson. I STILL DEFEND THE RIGHT TO BURN OLD GLORY AS A STATEMENT AGAINST THE STATUS QUO.

An Anonymous Person writes:

First of all I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to write to you. I am a college student in a small state university and there are not many people that will listen to what I have to say. In Texas v. Johnson (1989) the Supreme Court upheld flag burning by stating: "The government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive." To supress such expression only makes those people denied the right to express their ideas become more hostile and eliminates the safety-valve function of free speech. Burning the flag is a form of speech-symbolic speech which is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has clarified this speech as protected. If this new amendment is passed, we will be totally contradicting the First Amendment. If this amendment is passed it will not take long for Congress to enact other legislation to take away other forms of speech. They will find a way to make "fighting words" illegal and not long after they will find a way to limit speech critical of the government. I am urging you to fight this amendment to the best of your abilities. Thank you.

AcmePsych writes:

Bruce Springsteen, flag on the seat of his pants or the back of his leather jacket. What an outlaw. But then that is in the context of a wonderfully pro-Amerikan, praise this wonderful kountry, album. What an exercise in confusion. Do they arrest him or hold him up as an example of someone who loves this country?

Drew Crawford writes:

Well Done. I believe that you have constructed what must be the most well thought out argument on this topic I have ever read. I was brought to your page because of a persuasive speech assignment. I had chosen the topic of flag desecration for my speech because I thought that I believed stronly against it. Ever since I have started researching for my speech though, more and more I have come to the conclusion that my hatred for flag-burning was really a hatred for the IDEA that it represents and the people who actually burn the flag. I believe however that I have changed my mind. Freedom of Speech here in America is an important right, one that should not be easily given away. Rather, Freedom of Speech is a right that I do not want to be taken away from me. I am still going to write my speech against Flag Desecration ( In the profane sense of the word "Desecration". I happen to like the American Flag converse, Shirt, and Pants that I own. ), however I believe I am going to change the central idea to persuade against the Idea of Anti-Patriotism and against the Motives of the people who believe that they must Burn our nation's highest emblem. Thank you for making this information public. I will recommend in my speech that people should stop by here during their "websurfing" hours and keep an open mind. By the way, It is good to see people out there who like to debate in a positive constructive manner and not a personally degrading attack style. Thanks again.

Ralf R. Kotowski writes:

Hi, I just saw your page (again) and mus say that you improved it a lot since the last time I was here.

In my country (Germany) people once idolized a symbol (the swastica, sorry for my bad writing, but as I said I'm German) and many people had to die because of that "blindness". You arwe right: when realitty doe not longer reflect the principles that symbol stands for, that symbol becomes worthless.

I'm in the US for 3 years now, and the longer I saty the more dissapointed I am. Aren't there more important issues in this country? Like education and healthcare? I don't understand this country, you liberated us from a total control system impossed by the Nazis just to turn into a total control system where the WANTS of the few outweight the NEEDS of the many, and all people do is idolize asymbol that has lost it's meaning.

If politicians don't want people to burn Flags they shouldn't give people resons to do so instead of distracting the public from the REAL issues by passing laws against burning flags.

Keep up the good work, as long as there are people like you I still have a little bit of hope for this country.

Donell Cox writes:

Speaking as an African-American male, the U.S. flag represents white supremacy and socioeconomic oppression of the "minorities" and the immigrants (of all ethnic groups, Blacks, and whites) who made this country what it is today. America is composed of multicultural crossroads, in the Arts, in Business, in Agriculture, and a multitude of various aspects of our society - and the flag, although thru no fault of its own, symbolizes white male domina- tion. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, two evil geniuses, created the concept of America for the sole benefit of white people, and all other races were disposable, their worth and value only to the extent of what talents of theirs could be exploited for the benefit of white people. The Confederate Flag is still the favorite of many white Southerners, because it effectively symbo- lizes slavery and the rich Southern legacy of contempt and cruelty of Africans. So, too, the U.S. flag of today is a cruel hoax, a snickering paradox of con- temporary racist values. Imagine just one of the thousands of Black men and women in the armed force, fighting alongside their white peers, risking their lives and giving them willfully - then coming back home from whatever small country of brown-skinned people the president chooses to invade and kill this week, and being treated as second-class citizens. No matter what great gains have been made in the past, such as the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s (which our generation appreciates, but cannot identify with, as most of us weren't around then), what doesn't seem to come into practice in our society in such areas as Employment, the Law, and History, is that passage written in the constitution... that every man AND WOMAN is created EQUAL. So the Constitution means more to me than the flag ever will. People have lived and died for the flag in battle - and what has come of it besides war and suffering? Domination of other countries and a stroking of that big imperialist american white dick/ ego? You tell me why whites and blacks have such differing opinions of life and their treatment if America is all for One and One for All. America has never BEEN together - it has always existed as seperate. I don't care WHAT you do with the goddamn flag. It is YOUR flag. Just don't wave it in my face, asking me to pledge allegiance to white supremacy.

Someone writes:

I am english so perhaps I am out of place in commenting on this issue, I have not really heard so much about it actually aside from what I've read here. Anyway, after reading many of the comments which have been posted on this page I wanted to make one or two comments myself. Firstly, a symbol of freedom should never ever become more important than the freedom it represents. When this happens the symbol becomes obselete, meaningless. It stops representing what it once did and starts representing something else altogether. As the late Bill Hicks said, - : if the US flag really does represent freedom then shoudn't that also include the freedom to burn the flag? I don't think that a piece of cloth can ever represent freedom. The actions of living breathing human beings represent freedom and when those actions start being supressed in the name of the flag which supposedly protects their freedom to act then something is very wrong indeed.

Scott Blalock writes:

I just surfed passed your Web page and it depressed me. Yes, this is America and I believe in holding on dear to our rights, but it is people like you which I flag burning leg would one day stop. I grew up not in this country but overseas as a military brat and that flag which you so casually burn was the only thing linking me back to the states. I have also had serveral friends and family die fighting under that flag, and I too have served my country under that flag. Yes, to you it is mearly colored cloth made for you and others to burn and have fun enraging people while doing so, but to me it is much more and I think it deserves some protection. I know you will never understand this due to your purist 1st Admendment rights position, so I am not trying to change your opinion. I am mearly telling you I find people like you unfortunate. Unfortunate because of your warped idea of what being patriotic is. Drop me a line in 20 years and let me know how burning the flag helped the US with all the problems facing it. Good luck and have a nice day.

Gregory M. Johnson writes:

While I have not read all of your page I must say that I find myself agreeing with you. To friviously amend the US Constitution (the real item that so many have died to defend), merely to defend a symbol of that Constitution from a right guarunteed by that Constitution borders on the ridiculous. I certainly respect the Flag, and honor what it represents and the two hundred years of history that go with it. However, if this legislation is ever actually passed I may well be among the first found burning a flag on the steps of Congress. I have always felt that this country deserves respect because it is strong enough to withstand criticism by its own people, but if we have become so callow as to need to protect ourselves from a flag burning, then we as a nation are unworthy of the respect I have given in the past.

Colette D. Marine writes:

I admire and appreciate the amount of work you've done here. It frightens me that more people can't see the real issue here... that is, the specific revocation of an individual's right to express political dissent -- one of the basic rights upon which this country was founded. Without the freedom to do what one will with a piece of red, white and blue cloth or paper that is one's own personal property, the flag symbol itself loses all of its meaning. Freedom of speech is about protecting that speech we don't like, that speech which, ironically enough, might even challenge our right to freedom of speech. That's the paradox of freedom. If we refuse to acknowledge that paradox in our *symbol* of freedom, then do we really have freedom?

Debbie Roubanian writes:

i am 13, and yes i belive in the burning of the flag and its not because fire, or anarchy its because they call this land freedom and they think its their land, they put you in jail for killing someone but if you dodge a draft you get put in jail, now tell me thats not wrong....but who gives them a right to put me in a classroom and learn their lies about this country, how Abraham Lincoln and Gerorge Washington are so important and trustworthy, they are racist facist and worst than most criminals of today. "If con is the opposite of pro, is congress the opposite of progress?" -Shorty B. Worthless

Jeff Barlow writes:

I hard about your page again on a radio show "Peter Werbes' Nightcall" in Detroit tonight -Sunday, November 27th and decided to finally check it out. Needless to say I was impressed- a very nice job with a good presentation of your case along with some interesting comments from others. It is amazing the amount of anger that I am hearing from the pro-amendment side.

Keep up the fight, we may have a majority of the country against us but I hope that in the end sanity will prevail.

john jones writes:

While I found your virtual flag burning demonstration to be very offensive, you do make a sound and logical argument for such an action. Regrettably, I will have to side with you on this issue.

Juanita Chronowski writes:

I think that we forget that in this country we have freedom and it's only when we abuse it that it gets challanged. Burning the flag of our country should weigh heavy on our thoughts is it our country that we disagree with or just a policy or two or a law or an idea. So to burn the flag is just like cutting off the nose to spite the face. If our freedom is being challenged then we should oppose the forces standind in our way and not the country that permits us to stand.

Bob Frenchu writes:

Enjoyed your page. I was amazed to discover many months ago that my Senator, Dianne Feinstein, was FOR this stupid amendment. I figured a liveral sap such as herself would be totally against this sort of thing. I guess I'll never be able to figure her out. I emailed her a short letter asking her to vote no when the time came, and she mailed me a bunch of hooey describing why she was supporting it. Follows is the tect of my final letter to her on the subject, in case you are interested.

Dear Senator Feinstein:

I am amazed and astounded at your position on the proposed "flag amendment," as you stated to me in your letter of 8 July. I cannot "agree to disagree."

Countless men and women have not "given their lives to protect the flag," as you state in your letter. They may have given their lives to protect themselves, their unit, their families, or their country, but I sincerely doubt that protecting a piece of colored cloth was foremost on their minds. Can you honestly say, as a United States Senator, that you would forfeit your life in such a manner? Could you ask that anyone give their life in such an endeavor? I think not.

While I respect the fundamental idea that you are able to express your convictions in any manner you so choose, as long as that manner does not infringe upon my rights, I cannot in good conscience allow this matter to pass without protest. I certainly do not and can not respect your position on this- it is contrary to what I believe is common sense, and only serves to deflect your attention [and that of the public] from affairs more deserving.

You may succeed in allowing the amendment to be put to a vote by the States. I can only hope that they have the collective sense to recognize that such an amendment would be a stain upon the Constitution- a document written to protect the rights of people, not dyed textiles.

Naturally there was no reply. I may contact her again and remind her of my oppposition. Thanks for the page. Glad to see that there is at least one other person out there with a lick of sense.

ray woodley writes:

I'd just comment that you Americans are just way too patriotic. Having a country is fine but as a new Net person I am seeing how screw up the world is with borders and nationlism. It is great to live in a great country, but also live in the world as well. Your entire country wraps itself in the flag, from my perspective in Canada I can't understand all the fuss. I do agree with your excellent homepage, eh?


Fuck! I am not an American, but this page seems like a shit for me. You even don't explain why do you want to burn the flag. I just cannot imagine the people can treat their pride and treasure this way. When I drive to my university, the hundreds of star-sprangled banners "still way o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave"- and this proves that the people of this country resent you. May this glorious flag wave forever, and may the God help Newt and the Republicans to piss off all the Liberal scum disgracing this land.

Dr. Mahale writes:

The whole idea of the amendment is silly. What about burning a copy of Declaration of Independance or Federalist or the constitution. The whole idea in burning the flag is to iritate the "patriot" it can be done in number of ways. One could make a flag similar to US Flag but with diffrent colors etc. The amendment, however, may increase the gross national product by cutting out some work for the lawyers. Very, very silly. Editor's Note: see the Definition of flag burning page for info on what laws like this one would probably resemble. Adding a star won't get you out of this one....

Bryan Stewart writes:

I like your page on flag burning. It is an issue that needs to be addressed in these fascist times. Unfortunately, the patriotically correct don't understand that not everybody is with them. There are now too many trickle-down politicians going around, telling everybody what to believe.

The fact is you can't tell everybody what to believe. Maybe in places like Cuba and Iran you can tell people what to believe, but not here in this country. It just won't happen. I think an admendment like this will embolden the flag burners to commit the act. It may even provoke people who would not ordinarily burn a flag, to do so. Just as a point of resistance towards the trickle-down right-wing.

I won't burn a flag beacuse I respect it. But I respect the constitution even more. As repulsive an act as it is, I believe it to be an expression of free political speech. People need to resist the erosion of free speech from both the far right or the far left. If not, then the political extremes will get their way and our prisons will be filled with political prisoners.

Dean Mathiowetz writes:

I am a graduate student of political science at the University of California at Berkeley. I am writing a seminar paper on Texas v. Johnson, and I found your "Flag-Burning" page to be very helpful for my budding research; informative in general; and lots of fun to boot. I think it's important to emphasize that in fact, the virtual flag-burning on you page may be an illegal act if Congress has its vile way. Lots of people don't realize that...so thanks for putting the time into that page. It does make me interested to know what's got you motivated.

Any other thoughts or information you might have about this issue might be very helpful for me. I am focusing my paper on the role of art in the Supreme Court judicial process. While that might sound strange, it's little known that Jasper Johns, Jenny Holzer, Robert Rauchenberg, Sol Lewitt, Claes Oldenberg, and other contemporary artists submitted a brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of Johnson due to their concerns about the ruling's possible effect upon art such as theirs which uses the flag as important representation. (I would not be at all surprised if you know this.) As you know, Justice Rehnquist's dissent quotes poetry and lyric to make the point that the flag ought to be preserved as a special symbol; his argument (written after the artists' brief,) plays right into the hands of their argument that the flag is an important element of American artistry.

Again, thanks for the information. I hope you don't get too much hate mail from the Right, but I suspect you do.

Warren Hultquist writes:

I’m astounded that anyone claiming to be both patriotic and rational would want to criminalize flag-burning. I’m even more astounded that The House and Senate are wasting time and money on this inane and childish concern.

The right to express your feelings about the USA is, in large part, what sets us apart from countries like China. I shudder at the thought that symbolic gestures like burning privately owned US flags would fall under the same type of ideological criminalization as burning pictures of Chairman Mao. Reason is further defied by the simultaneous consideration being given to the selling-off of far more tangible and irreplaceable public assets like our National Parks.

The flag-burning amendment is a ridiculous and unnecessary exertion of government control. Let's get busy and solve the REAL problems we face.

Mike McNally writes:

I find myself enjoying, truly, the maxim repeated so often among the "level-headed" people who want to outlaw flag burning:

[ Sen. Feinstein, who we should note would also like to outlaw discussion of explosives via electronic mail and BBS media ]

To me, that statement can be directly inverted to lay bare the threat such a law poses to the 1st Amendment:

"The most profound, shocking, and effective way to communicate outrage at some political, cultural, or ideological situation or event in this nation is to dramatically destroy the national flag."

Should such a law be enacted, I wonder how long it would take before an assault was mounted against the *second* most effective way to so communicate.

And then the third...

John A. Leo writes:

Strongly felt ideas require equally strong communicative images. While our Constitution as ammended should be as close to "sacred" as any thing can be, the flag itself is only a symbol of the nation at the moment; and at any momement the actions of the nation may be wrong, perhaps very wrong, and therefore requires an equally strong statement and image that the wrong must cease for the good and continued existance of the nation as defined by the Constitution as ammended.

SETH J. FEHRS posted to Libernet:

Subject: Virtual flagburning and the "Flag Amendment"

Other ways to protest flag-burning bans:

George D. Phillies posted to Libernet:

Perhaps instead of the 'flag desecration amendment' we would more effectively call the attention of the religious right, in particular, to the true meaning of the amendment if we were to regularly describe it as the 'Flag Idolatry Amendment' 'idolatry' being a word that many of us do not commonly use but that which should be relatively familiar to many evangelicals.

Andrea Wood writes:

As a junior journalsm student at a state college in rural Ohio, I am a great appreciator of free expression in all realms. I can say with certainty that the act of flag-burning is the ultimate act of patriotism. Why? Because people who choose to burn the flag as a form of protest are man or woman enough to openly admit that there is much room for improvement, although our land is known as the greatest country in the world.

Watching Old Glory burn through rose-colored specs skews the view: there is a point to all the hububb. Also... What realm will the amendment rule? I'll tell you what's offensive: Those bikini's made to look remarkably similar to the Stars and Stripes! Who wants the symbol of our nation rubbin' some woman's Little Hairy Monster? If I were a flag, I'd rather be torched.

Chris Blanc writes:

your flag-burning page rules. there is no disrespect greater than to make a mockery of the freedoms the flag stands for, independent of the petty needs of the government now and its desire to hide its real weakness. freedom is an eternal thing and is our only hope.

i have a challenge for the lawmakers: prove to me you're making a future by restricting action. as knowledge and technology spread it becomes easier to make things that can destroy each other. we see from the oklahoma bombing that anyone with some knowledge can create mass hate. we can't stop it from happening, but we can direct our actions so that we're not always pitted against one another. this starts with freedom, where we learn to respect others as entities with equal boundaries to our own.

we need to let freedom reign, and from the chaos that ensues to develop our moral sense. if i don't have a fundamental respect for you as another living organism, i will do as power does and subjugate/destroy you without thinking about it (ed note: this isn't a threat, but a hypothetical "you"). those that wish to obstruct us from that aim -- that redemption -- are those who wish to profit off of our disconnectedness, selling us each a bill of goods and reaping the rewards.

politics is a lie, and the "flag-burning amendment" is a further extension of that lie. true human emotions need to rise in support of a future for this country, this planet, this species.

Travis Childs writes:

It's not about being able to burn the flag--it's about RESPECT! This country's citizens have no RESPECT for life, liberty, or the the pursuit of happiness. NO ONE respects anything anymore--so why should I think they would respect the flag?

RESPECT-3a. "high or special regard:ESTEEM"

If stupid americans don't respect life--I darn well don't expect them to respect the flag or this country.

Edward E. McKnight writes:

As a proud American veteran and, likewise, a proud citizen I believe the burning of the American flag to be the act of communists, thus, those who do so should be treated in the manner of the late Gary Gilmore. I believe this nation stands proud helping others who are in need of help. This nation is in turmoil now because it allows so many cretins to speak about nothing. I do not believe in any racism or hate groups, but I must say from the bottom of my heart that the flag should be preserved though I be the lone survivor.

Wayne A. Coverdale writes:

While I do find flagburning offensive, and can't think of a worse way to promote a cause, I have a real problem with legislation that would in effect create a national religion by elevating a symbol to a protected, sacred status. Having to occasionaly see something that we find personally offensive is just part of the price we have to pay for living in a free society.

Bruce L. Thompson writes:

I am opposed to the flag burning amendment. My motto is "The Constitution--Love it and leave it alone." That said, it taxes my imagination to describe in a civil fashion my loathing for flag-burners. Barnacles on the ship of state. Tapeworms in the body politic. Rats in the wall. They are as ignorant of their national blessings as fish are ignorant of water. We are all familiar with how media attention can confer authority on even the most insignificant or pernicious malcontents. That's why I hope the flag-burning amendment will go away now that it's been defeated, so that these Americans-by-accident-of birth will go away, too. Let these sea lampreys sink back into the abyss, and nevermore impose their noisome selves on honest, proud, REAL Americans.

From March to December of 1995, while this amendment was being considered in Congress, this page collected a large volume of comments from the public, all of which are on display in the Comment Archive.

The Flag Burning Page generated quite a volume of email. Most of it was posted right here. Messages like "Why don't you do the Nation a favour and kill yourself." (actual quote) would just clutter up this page. People who send flames like this one are given a chance to rewrite their thoughts before they get posted to the Flag Flames Page

Warren S. Apel