I can remember was done by Cuban Americans protesting the sending back of the little boy to his father in Cuba.

Trump is bad; Clinton is bad.

I also have no doubts the constitutional scholars in the Obama mode, if elevated to the Supreme Court, would find any of this just fine and not in conflict with symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

It's disgraceful conduct in my view, Clinton & Trump proposing stuff like this.

Protestors can obtain a government-issued red-white-and-blue bunting which cannot reasonably be mistaken for a flag which can be ceremonially heated to below ignition temperature in a designated free-speech zone. Any statement they wish to make can be written down, not spoken aloud, and delivered to a law enforcement official who will proceed to burn it without reading. Any deviation from this straightforward procedure is terrorism and will be met with deadly force.
Thus the protestors' First Amendment rights will be ensured and no one will be offended by dissent.

And they still do... Whenever a Rethug is in office.

I believe he reran this a couple times during the reign of King George the Second.

Not a word when Hillary suggests it of course.

all together! Although many clever flag designs have been snagged by other countries already...

In retrospect, as Hillary and her supporters tried to re-invent her over the years, I don't think her suburban born republicanism ideals ever left her. In fact, it was her foundation belief system. Eventually she migrated to her own kind of Rockefeller republicanism, sometimes going left to it, and many more times to the right of it. She learned how to speak a kind of liberal talk around subjects where she veered left from her republican roots and made her blend and camouflage her among liberal democrats. In her comments about public and private positions that came out of Wilkileaks I think reveals she at some level understood her duplicity.

Her legacy? The political carnage of the democratic party.

It's the Clinton M.O.

A huge difference between a statute and a Constitutional amendment? Making a statute law is a heck of a lot easier than getting a Constitutional amendment ratified. http://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution

And you know, if that statute passed, NO legislator was going to write a bill to repeal the statue ever. Look what they did to Obama just for not wearing a flag pin every damn day. We worry more about the flag than we do the lives, limbs and sanity of our troops. Mind you, even when we pledge allegiance, it's to the flag first and the nation second. How messed up is that? Our national anthem is based not on the nation's purple mountain majesty or amber waves of grain but on some guy worrying, the morning after a battle, whether the flag survived the fight, not how many of his countrymen survived. We are really sick, IMO, about the flag and about war. Yet, even Scalia had held that burning the flag is protected speech.

Anyway, passing an unconstitutional statute to avoid a potential constitutional amendment is bull, much like all the Clinton rationalizations for doing bad stuff. And, btw, if I get thrown in jail for burning a flag, does it really matter to me and to the chilling effect my imprisonment will have on the speech of others, if they locked me up under Hillary's statute or a Constitutional amendment?

I don't wish the Clintons a bit of harm, but at times, their deceit just makes me nauseous.

And what does it say about Hillary's vaunted, but non-existent, skills that she could not even get this statute passed? I think Republicans introduced a new flag-burning bill every session, so it must have been her own party that she could not get to work with her on this, much as with Billarycare. In her years in the Senate, she did not write one substantive bill that became law, not one, not even one of her two-flag burning bills.