Tagged: constitutional law

Law 18: On the Individual Right to Own Nuclear Weapons

A military occupation of a foreign country allegedly “for the oil fields” means you want to convince people it is in order to pay top dollar for oil, when it would be much less expensive to just buy it.

*

Vaccination in an Age of Opioid Crisis

DC AG subpoenas Facebook for data on ALL users that have spread “COVID-19 misinformation.”–Unmasking people for wrongthink. (Reclaim the Net)

“The subpoena is part of a previously undisclosed investigation into whether Facebook is violating consumer protection laws.”

The story is quite hazy. It isn’t clear to me on what legal grounds the subpoena is issued. Consumer protection? When someone opposes vaccination, he certainly is no consumer of vaccines. ‘’Consumer’’ protection for vax dealers from their market then?

That they still have the effrontery to tell people what information and misinformation on health issues is while in the middle of an opioid crisis that has claimed more than half a million lives is mind-blowing.

ii

In the middle of an opioid crisis that has claimed more than half a million lives† the ‘’administrative state’’ (John Marini) is in no position to tell citizens what information is and what misinformation (for instance on vaccines).

“The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices.’’ (FDA’s Website) No, the FDA is not responsible for that since in the middle of an opioid crisis of such magnitude no accountability claim is raised against the FDA.

†« La crise des opaciés ayant fait plus d’un demi-million de morts depuis vingt ans » (Le Figaro newspaper, June 28, 2021)

*

Compulsory Love: State Rape of Consciences

Supreme Court Refuses To Decide If Floral Artist Loses Her Religious Liberty At Shop Door. (The Federalist, July 2, 2021)

Soon no one will know what to expect. “In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court noted the ‘public aspects’ of a restaurant charged with racial discrimination, primarily attributable to the fact that it was a lessee in a publicly owned building. However, the ruling made it clear that not every lease of public property would be considered a sufficient entanglement to justify a finding of state action.” (Kennedy & Schultz, American Public Service, 2011). This means there can be no charge of racial discrimination against restaurants that have no ‘public aspect’ about them (not in the sense of public accommodation but in the sense for example of being a lessee in a publicly owned building). And this while “Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of ‘race, color, religion, or national origin’” (since the Civil Rights Acts – the case cited above, from 1961, predates the 1964 federal act but, as you know, a federal statute does not empty out a Supreme Court’s decision and, on the contrary, if it were argued that the federal statute runs into the decision, that would mean the statute is unconstitutional.)

The case discussed by The Federalist is about derogations to antidiscrimination laws in public accommodations such as cakeshops or flower shops. Why even talk of derogations? If a restaurant with no ‘public aspect’ about it is immune from charges of discrimination under federal law, you bet a flower shop is immune from a whacky state law (unconstitutional to begin with).

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case because, I am sure, they know they would have had to uphold the florist’s rights against Washington state’s antidiscrimination law and… they didn’t want to.

ii

The Court had the clear duty to protect the florist’s right because this was expected by everyone from 1/ the Court’s case law (Masterpiece Cakeshop, 2018) and 2/ the Court’s action in the present case: “The Washington Supreme Court upheld the ban, even after SCOTUS asked the state’s court to keep the landmark Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling into account.” (The Federalist) 1+2=hear the case, not dismiss it!

One responsible for the declinal and contempt of an American citizen’s freedom is Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It seems it always works: she was so vilified and demonized as an extremist during the hearings that she might become a liberal swamp creature from now on in everything she does as Justice, if she has freaked out.

There are enough community-friendly businesses around with the little flags, leave people alone.

*

Pastor Green

As Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen is currently prosecuted for hate speech in Finland after having expressed her Christian views about homosexuality (see Law 11), let us remember a case in Finland’s neighboring Sweden, where Pentecostal Pastor Åke Green was acquitted by the Swedish Supreme Court applying Articles 9 (freedom of conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of speech) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) against the Swedish criminal code.

For having in a sermon “described ‘sexual perversions’ (referencing homosexuality) as ‘abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society’ [and] said that a person cannot be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time’’ (Wikipedia), Pastor Green was prosecuted for group libel (hets mot folksgrupp, ‘’incitement against a group’’) and sentenced to one month in prison. The court of appeals overturned the sentence, leading the attorney general, unsatisfied that Pastor Green could get off scot-free for expressing his views, to bring the case before the Supreme Court.

In 2005 the Supreme Court, invoking the ECHR that applies to all party states (among them Finland too), upheld Pastor Green’s right to express his views.

Then, “[r]esponding to the sentence, Sören Andersson, the president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL), said that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to persecute people.’’ (Wikipedia) This is a testimony of this person’s blatantly muddled notions since, even though there were no separation of Church and State in Sweden (there is a national Lutheran church), expressing one’s negative views about homosexuality from outside the national church and state in no way can be construed (contrived) as persecution of homosexuals, and on the contrary it was Pastor Green’s conviction for his speech that was persecution – state persecution (endorsed by RFSL) until the Supreme Court overturned the conviction.

I ask the Finnish courts regarding Päivi Räsänen to uphold Sweden’s interpretation of the ECHR and not to make an empty nutshell of the Convention.

*

On New Definitions as Hot Air

A new definition of antisemitism by the U.S. State Department is not a matter of law and can have no judicial effect on American citizens since antisemitism is nonexistent as a legal object to begin with (there is no constitutional hate speech law in the U.S. thanks to the First Amendment). As I see it, they intend the move as an international policy pressure tool: since anti-Zionism is now, by this new definition, antisemitism, they can object to anti-Zionist standpoints from other countries as antisemitic, and presumably they believe it will give the American administration more self-willfulness in their unconditional (and therefore, in my opinion, unconstitutional) alignment with Israel (aligned no matter what the latter’s policies are).

Probably mainstream media will talk a good deal about it? Governor Greg Abbott led the way by having the definition adopted already in Texas (see Law 17). I don’t know what it is in Texas, whether a statute, an executive act, or a sheet of paper signed by Abbott and flaunted to cameras. No idea, but neither this Texan nor the U.S. State Department’s definition is a normative act. They’re using their constitutional powers for non-normative activity. HOT AIR. Symbolically you might resent it, and symbolically mainstream media might make a lot of fuss about it as if it were lawmaking, but legally speaking this hot air is showing us some people at the end of their tether if anything.

(“At the end of their tether” means that if the hot air becomes too visibly pathetic they are going to resort to illegality in broad daylight.)

ii

To be sure, antisemitism might be considered a legal object through the dubious category of hate crime (a crime against an individual is thought more egregious when the alleged motivation is hate towards a group). I call the category dubious but so far it has not been declared unconstitutional, so I make the present qualification. However, this does not change one jot to what I wrote, as neither the State Department nor Abbott’s definition binds courts, which will continue to use their own sovereign definitions.

*

Given that the new administration’s barefaced hostility to the First Amendment can only lead to their blowing hot air and never to legitimate lawmaking, the greatest threat of illegal violence at this juncture in the USA is poised against law-abiding dissenters. There is something pathetic about blowing hot air which cannot escape them (the administration, the government) long.

*

On the Individual Right to Own Nuclear Weapons

“If you wanted to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.’’ (Joe Biden)

Defenders of the Second Amendment have memed about the F-15s, with pictures of jet planes displayed on private lawns and such like. The Second Amendment, I argue, allows one to own nuclear weapons. Here’s the story: “The only instance where a court has permitted the prior restraint of a newspaper was in United States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979), where a federal court enjoined a magazine from publishing the directions on how to make a hydrogen bomb. The government feared that publishing the recipe for the bomb would threaten the United States. Eventually a federal court of appeals decision lifted the injunction on publication of the directions and the Progressive Magazine published the hydrogen bomb recipe in an article.’’ (Encyclopedia of American Law, Schultz ed., 2002: prior restraint)

The recipe for the H bomb was published in a magazine around 1979 (after the restraint on publication was lifted by a court of appeals). The prior restraint was lifted because the court of appeals did not agree with the government that publishing the recipe would threaten the United States. Therefore, as publishing the recipe for a nuclear weapon is not a threat such as prior restraint would be warranted, similarly owning a nuclear weapon is not, since publishing the recipe is only a step to making and owning the weapon, not an end in itself. As a consequence, any statute prohibiting the making and owning of nuclear weapons violates the Constitution.

*

Health Official [Nova Scotia, Canada]: Banning Public Gatherings Stops “Misinformation” Spread.

Every piece of information about Canada should appear with a mandatory warning: ‘’Canada.’’ You can’t go on freaking people out like this.

*

Libel Law and the Political Cartel

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch call for a revisiting of 1964 case that prevented public figures suing for defamation. (Reclaim the Net)

Well, public figures are not “prevented” from suing, only they must show actual malice when the statements are untrue, that is, the onus of the proof is on them. – Let these two Justices have their way and soon you’ll have nothing to envy to Canada. Of course, public figures can sue, only claimants must demonstrate defendants’ actual malice, and this is what Justices Gorsuch and Thomas disagree with. They want politicians to be censors through gag trials as politicians do in other countries like Canada.

ii

Reclaim the Net wrote a rather supportive paper on Justices Thomas and Gorsuch’s opinion that libel law should be changed regarding public officials (read: politicians), that is, that NYT v. Sullivan should be reversed. Therefore, they endorsed a view contrary to free speech, they defend politicians’ so-called personality rights against free speech, supporting the two Justices’ view that the line should be drawn as it is in Canada, for instance, which is to pave the way to a political class forming a protected political cartel. This betrays Reclaim the Net’s conservative militancy, that is, their alignment with party politics. As it is observed that the media environment is biased towards the Democratic party and against the Republican party, the two Justices think that aligning libel law with all other western democracies’ practice (with their political cartels) will allow Republican politicians to respond to smear campaigns (as if such campaigns were really detrimental to them, to begin with, rather than the opposite). To make a long story short: this will Canadize (Canada-ize) the USA. (But as I said already time and again hostility to free speech is universal among professional politicians: this statement is my contribution to political SCIENCE.)

(One more thing: When you will have Canadized USA through libel law, it will only be a matter a time before USA adopts hate speech laws Canada-wise and alternative social platforms will be no more.)

*

Irrevocable Laws

Canada marching towards tyranny as move to criminalize dissenting speech moves closer to reality. (Natural News)

Hate speech is already a crime in Canada and has been for decades. Therefore, Canada is not “moving to criminalize dissenting speech,” as if it did not exist already in the country.

“The proposed legislation by the Justice Department of Canada would tamp down on hate speech by adding language to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canadian criminal code to try to clarify the definition of hate speech.”

We’re talking of a mere “clarification” of the definition of hate speech. – Opponents to this “clarification” are not opposed to hate speech legislation, quite the contrary: “This bill will not target hate speech – just ensure bureaucrats in Ottawa are bogged down with frivolous complaints about tweets,” Rob Moore, the Conservative Party’s Shadow Minister for Justice and Attorney General of Canada, noted.” Canadian conservative opposition feels the clarification of the definition of hate speech will not target hate speech and therefore it is bad. For them criminalization of hate speech is GOOD. And they’re the opposition!

*

Two “Western Democracies’’ Worlds Apart

Tennessee mayor powerless to remove ‘vile’ anti-Biden flag.

The flag, which says, “(expletive) Biden and (expletive) you for voting for him,” was propped up at least a month ago at a home in Munford.

Mayor Dwayne Cole said the city attorney looked into the matter and, despite the wave of complaints, determined that the homeowner is within his rights to fly the flag. (Washington Examiner, July 4, 2021)

Compare:

Une jeune femme interpellée à Toulouse pour une banderole “Macronavirus” dans son jardin. La police l’a placée en garde à vue pour « outrage », avant de la relâcher, indique son avocate. Mediapart fait état de plusieurs interventions policières en France pour des affaires de ce genre.

Les résidents ont obtempéré à la demande de décrochage, mais les policiers sont revenus le lendemain remettre une convocation à l’une d’entre eux. (Sud Ouest, April 24, 2020)

*

‘’If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither the judge nor jury. Therefore, what he must be taught to fear is his victim.’’ (Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper USMC [United States Marine Corps])

« Réduire la criminalité, seule la victime potentielle peut le faire. Le criminel n’a pas peur de la police, du juge ni d’un jury. Aussi, ce dont il doit apprendre à avoir peur, c’est de sa victime. » (Lieut. col. Jeff Cooper [1920-2006])

Tout le reste est État policier.

Law 15: One Repeal to Freedom

Hate Crime

“Adding extra penalties to a crime based upon the offender’s motive or prejudicial statements is an unconstitutional abridgement of free expression. … Proponents of hate crime laws have attempted to compare the need for hate crime laws with the need for laws against discrimination. On the other hand, some have noted that civil rights laws target discriminatory behavior, not the prejudice behind the behavior.” (Encyclopedia of American Law)

I owe the reader a precision. The first sentence has been cut to express my full endorsement of the idea and this is not the current state of the law. The original sentence is “Critics of hate crime statutes argue that adding extra penalties to a crime etc.”

*

One Repeal to Freedom: Terminating the Civil Rights Acts

The most conspicuous, when the Acts are repealed, is that nothing will be changed. The fair employment section has not desegregated the workplace and the fair housing act has not desegregated neighborhoods–as far as those for whom these acts were allegedly passed, the Negroes, are concerned. Critical race theory is correct: civil rights legislation is rubbish and the liberals’ record a piece of trash.

*

The Threat of Standing Armies

(Completes The People in Arms in Law 14.)

The second amendment has three functions: (1) To defend against a tyrannical government

Assuming a tyrannical government is what Scalia calls “public violence” in the phrase “(protecting oneself against) both public and private violence,” and that to defend against it is to defend against its army, can it be done by the militias as known from the statutes?

The National Guard is “under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government”: If one of the two controllers is the tyrannical government, the National Guard cannot act as a defense against it unless it splits from the tyrannical controller. If the two controllers are together, the National Guard can do nothing.

State Defense forces are under state control. They cannot defend against a tyrannical government if the state in question supports said government or is the tyrannical government.

These are not militias but integral parts of the governments that the Constitution suspects of possible public violence and tyranny, and therefore the legislative acts are best described as maneuvers to empty out a major constitutional object.

ii

Why did the Founders fear standing armies? Standing armies are made of the scum of society (Montesquieu already said so, why would it be different today?), so in the final analysis what you’ve got is a scum bureaucracy and a political lobby of the scum, which is gathered in a mass and thus can develop a scum class consciousness (contrary to tertiary sector workers, completely atomized). Add police to this brutish organized element and, besides big business (Delaware Inc. [see below]), you’ve got the most prominent political lobby in the state.

The Republican Party is their mouthpiece now (them plus small business. What blue collars? The jobs are outsourced in China), which platforms therefore ask both for small government and large armed forces: a banana republic. So much so that, seeing this farce, some true conservatives have been forced to flee to a third party, the Libertarians, even though, as I wrote elsewhere (Law 10), a two-party system is better than a multi-party system. The Republican Party’s platforms vindicate both small government and large armed forces. Small business, bosses and employees alike, the former due to their opposition to red tape, the later out of resentment against functionaries’ entitlement, calls for small government. The praetorians call for large armies. The Democratic Party’s platforms are dictated by the technostructure, which is compounded of big business and state bureaucracy.

iii

When this or that politician emphatically declaims that the army is the most desegregated institution in the states, it’s a bloody sarcasm on racial minorities. More desegregated is only… prisons. What is it they gloat over?

In my opinion, professional soldiers should never be called veterans. It must be reserved to drafted civilians. The figures of military outsourcing in the U.S. (Titan Corporation etc.) are now staggering and these companies’ employees most probably never get called veterans.

*

Delaware Inc.

Biden has spent his career making it difficult to wipe out debt via bankruptcy. Biden is from Credit Card Company-run Delaware. (Patrick Howley, journalist)

Oh, Biden is from Delaware… Recently I read this on Delaware: “Most American corporations are incorporated in Delaware and … most Delaware cases of corporation law are done in front of professional judges [Delaware Court of Chancery, an equity court], not jury laymen.” (De Geest, American Law: A Comparative Primer, 2020)

I apologize for putting Howley’s “credit card company run-Delaware” description in its true light, which is that it’s not even half the picture, since “[m]ost American corporations are incorporated in Delaware and … most Delaware cases of corporation law are done in front of professional judges, not jury laymen.”

Delaware is the incorporation state of “most American corporations” so they can avoid litigation via popular juries. Therefore, the item Howley lays down from Biden’s record (making it difficult to wipe out debt via bankruptcy) must have a more accurate reason, which is, in my opinion, that Delaware is the state of big corporation interests, and it’s small business owners who need accommodating bankruptcy laws. Big corporations, on the other hand, have an interest in holding small business by the throat.

*

The Mexican Flag As Gown

North Carolina student denied diploma after wearing Mexican flag over graduation gown.

Here’s the story.

“Livestreamed video footage from the ceremony shows the principal ask him to take the flag off. After an unsuccessful attempt to take it off, he was handed his diploma holder, which the other students also received. But after walking across the stage, he was denied his actual diploma.”

“This incident is not about the Mexican flag,” the school said, adding they “strongly support [their] students’ expression of their heritage.” But “school dress code allows decoration only on graduation cap.”

Then, “In a statement to ABC News on Sunday, … High School said that Lopez’s diploma has been available for pick up since Friday and that an apology has never been requested, expected or required.”

With title “North Carolina student denied diploma after wearing Mexican flag over graduation gown,” the author of the paper seemingly intends to make of this story a civil liberties issue, whereas it is a dress code issue, and when you read till the end, of course the student’s got his diploma: he can pick it up at the school and the school has not even asked for an apology for the decoration day’s dress code breach.

ii

The facts: E. Lopez wore the flag of Mexico over his graduation gown at decoration day. The principal who was to hand the diploma asked him to remove the flag because it was a breach of the school’s dress code for decoration day, upon which demand Lopez tried to comply but had difficulty removing the flag, so the principal handed the diploma nevertheless, finding Lopez’s wish to comply compliant enough. However, someone else from the school staff, after he had walked across the stage, thought differently and took the diploma back. This caused some outrage and a small demonstration took place in the next days. The school explained that the sanction had nothing to do with the flag but with a breach of dress code, that the diploma was available at the school for Lopez to pick it up, and that the school was not asking him an apology. The sanction was therefore simply that his diploma was withheld a few days by school officials, which seems quite fair and the school could have asked for an apology in the bargain without making a disproportionate demand, I find.

A paper was released (attached to a video from decoration day) with title “North Carolina student denied diploma after wearing Mexican flag over graduation gown.”

I wonder whether the word “denied” is not misleading and I would really like to know how other readers interpreted it. The diploma was retained a few days, does it justify the use of the word “denied”? On the other hand, Lopez did not get his diploma that day so he was denied the diploma that day, sure; still, he was not denied the diploma more than a few days…

The first thing that came to my mind when reading the headline (I’m not an American citizen and for a moment I overlooked the narrower meaning of the word diploma in English) is that E. Lopez was denied his degree, that is, the school authorities canceled his studies because of his wearing a foreign flag on his gown at decoration day, as if they had found it a seditious act. We all know the issue with flags is sensitive, Republicans tried to make burning or otherwise defiling the Stars and Stripes a criminal offense (the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional, so they tried to amend the Constitution, no less), so for a moment I thought school authorities had reacted in a hugely disproportionate way (the Supreme Court grants school authorities extensive prerogatives so why not?). I had been reading about Mexico’s President Vicente Fox urging, in his times, Mexican migrants to keep Mexico’s interest at heart when they vote in the U.S., so perhaps the climate in the school was marred by ethnic tensions and the authorities would have seized the opportunity and used the power that is bestowed upon them to make an example, treating the case as sedition and canceling the kid’s study years in a snap.

After I cooled down I knew it was only about the paper document, but still to “deny” Lopez this document, like forever, would have been disproportionate.

Then I found out the document was only withheld a few daysand I think it is all set (and the school could even have asked for an apology in my opinion). I said this was a mere dress code issue and not a civil liberties issue but this is not accurate: a dress code issue may well be a civil liberties issue, as is known since Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969): “The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others.”

The school authorities may have been quite lenient with Lopez because they had this Supreme Court’s decision in mind and not only because of possible diplomatic consequences or out of political correctness.

*

“Not liberty, but Dominion”

« (President John Quincy Adams) continued, America “goes not abroad in search of enemies to destroy.” If America embarked upon such a course she would “involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.” In prophetic words, Adams added, “The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force … She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.” Adams summed up America’s achievement in these words: “(Her) glory is not dominion, but liberty.” » (Claes G. Ryn, America the Virtuous, 2003)

“Not dominion, but liberty,” President Quincy Adams said. Now it seems that Americans are going to have “not liberty, but Dominion,” i.e., Dominion Voting Systems.

The very word Dominion should be abhorrent to Americans, for two reasons. 1/ In this major presidential speech from 1821 (the “not dominion, but liberty” speech) President Adams was reaffirming the tradition, set up by Washington in his farewell address, of avoiding entanglement in international relations, of avoiding it for the very sake of America’s greatness. 2/ Pursuant to the same ideal, America advocated nations’ right of self-determination in a time when the British and other European countries had world empires with dominions, allegedly “self-governing” colonies. That is to say, the word dominion runs into the idea of self-determination.

*

The Faceless Against Hate

Justin Trudeau: Freedom of expression isn’t “freedom to hate.”

That’s the true state of Canadian law, where faceless bureaucrats (of whom Trudeau is but the mouthpiece) decide what is hate and what is not, and what citizens, writers, intellectuals, journalists are allowed to say.

That a few states be added to the territory over which the Union is sovereign, is long overdue. If the U.S. does not consider it seriously or keeps accepting such a sham, such a parody of democracy at its border, then the Union will not be able to maintain its freedoms for long because its sense of freedom will be eroded by the deceptive idea that a country can be mocking and trampling liberties as Canada does and still be a legitimate model of Western democracy.

Before the internet people had no idea, but I fear the internet is not going to make Canadians ask for the same freedoms as their neighbor but rather that American faceless bureaucrats will press Congress and courts to curtail American freedoms, legitimized by the Canadian example. I fear the internet is not going to make Canadians ask for the same freedoms as their neighbor, precisely because their system is locked up. People do not decide what subjects are open to debate, Canadians are not allowed to ask “freedom to hate,” that would be, as the faceless bureaucrats construe it, to stand against the state, that would be sedition.

You might say Trudeau is the face of the “faceless,” after all. As much as a conservative prime minister would. They are called faceless no matter who is “in charge” because, in a locked-up system, the people cannot look at bureaucracy as in a mirror. Their dictates are promises made to lobbies behind closed doors; and while they hardly ever show up on political platforms, yet repressive laws are piling up.

*

Flag Desecration Amendments Galore

Whereas in most countries flag desecration is a criminal offense punishable with prison, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a statute prohibiting burning and otherwise defiling the Stars and Stripes.

Therefore, since Texas v. Johnson, 1989, in order to make it a criminal offense like elsewhere U.S. lawmakers need a constitutional amendment.

« There have been several proposed Flag Desecration Amendments to the Constitution of the United States that would allow Congress to enact laws to prohibit flag desecration:

Douglas Applegate (Ohio) in 1991
Spencer Bachus (Alabama) in 2013
Steve Daines (Montana) in 2019
Robert Dornan (California) in 1991
Bill Emerson (Missouri) in 1991, 1993, 1995
Randy Cunningham (California) in 1999, 2001, 2003,
Jo Ann Emerson (Missouri) in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013
John P. Hammerschmidt (Arkansas), 1991
Orrin Hatch (Utah) in 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2011, 2013
Andrew Jacobs Jr. (Indiana) in 1995
Joseph M. McDade (Pennsylvania) in 1989, 1995, 1996
Clarence E. Miller (Ohio) in 1991
John Murtha (Pennsylvania) in 2007
Ron Paul (Texas) in 1997, but he opposed any federal prohibition of flag desecration, including his own Flag Desecration Amendment which he proposed only as a protest against proposals by his Congressional colleagues, such as Emerson and Solomon, to ban flag desecration through ordinary legislation instead of by Constitutional Amendment.
Gerald B. H. Solomon (New York) in 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997
Floyd Spence (South Carolina) in 1991
David Vitter (Louisiana) in 2009 »

(Wikipedia: Flag Desecration)

To think that lawmakers are so obstinate, they must have plenty of time to waste. But this is no surprise; as I always say, it takes independent judges tenured for life to defend free speech, whereas elected officials are always against free speech.