ACLU strikes once again

[hops_scout 9]

This is just about an hour from my house:(

 

http://www.southernillinoisan.com/rednews/2003/12/04/build/top/TOP004.html

 

 

JONESBORO -- Burning an American flag landed a Jonesboro man in jail for several days, said Union County Assistant State's Attorney Patrick Duffy.

 

But one expert said he's surprised the flag desecration charge came to court because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag desecration rules are unconstitutional.

 

Michael Ravellette, 29, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Union County circuit court to unlawful desecration of the American flag. Judge Rodney Clutts sentenced Ravellette to Tri-County Detention Center in Ullin and two years' probation. He must also pay court costs and submit DNA samples to state police.

 

Duffy said Ravellette was in jail at the time of his plea and Tuesday was his final day.

 

Ravellette also admitted he was violating his probation on a domestic battery offense by being around his girlfriend at the time he was arrested, Duffy said. The judge ordered Ravellette to pay a $250 fine and attend counseling.

 

Also, felony retail theft charges against Ravellette were closed Nov. 25 in Jackson County. He was sentenced to two years' probation.

 

Duffy said Ravellette was arrested in the flag burning case after police searched his girlfriend's residence looking for a methamphetamine lab. Ravellette was at his girlfriend's home.

 

Officers didn't find anything meth-related and were preparing to leave when Ravellette came out with a burning American flag.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

 

Duffy said the burning flag was visible to the public.

 

"He was holding it up in his hands and waving it around," Duffy said.

 

An officer took the flag from Ravellette and extinguished the flames. Ravellette was arrested and the flag was held as evidence.

 

"I've never been able to figure out the motive behind this," Duffy said.

 

Ravellette's defense attorney, McArthur Allen, wouldn't comment Wednesday.

 

Burning is the proper way to dispose of an American flag once it will no longer be used, but Duffy said the manner in which Ravellette burned it was inappropriate.

 

However, an American Civil Liberties Union spokesman said he's surprised the flag desecration charge was not dismissed.

 

"Have they not heard of Texas vs. Johnson down there?" said Ed Yohnka, ACLU's Illinois communications director.

 

Yohnka said Texas vs. Johnson was a 1989 case in which a Texas statute prohibiting flag desecration was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress reponded by trying to pass a federal flag desecration law, which also was struck down by the court.

 

Illinois is one of many states that still has a flag desecration law on the books. Yohnka said that's not a surprise.

 

"It's not uncommon for states to still have these statutes on the books," he said. "It seems to me very uncommon for a person to be prosecuted when the Supreme Court has ruled."

 

Yohnka said usually when a flag is burned in protest, other charges -- but not desecration -- are filed.

 

"People who desecrate the flag are often prosecuted, but often are prosecuted because they went and stole the flag, maybe from a federal building," he said.

 

The fact that Ravellette was prosecuted concerns Yohnka.

 

"It would be one thing for the guy to not know what the law is; it's another thing for the prosecutor not to know what the law is," he said.

 

[Deloe 10]

I don't understand your title; I don't see that the ACLU has done anything other than offer their opinion of the case to a reporter. I also don't understand the tone of the title; do you approve of courts ignoring the Supreme Court? Seems to me "Enemies of the Constitution strike again" would be a more proper title.

[scoutingagain 20]

Here's an interesting article about a Church's right to hold Baptism ceremonies in a public park.

 

Which side do you think the ACLU is defending?

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=14&u=/ap/20040602/ap_on_re_us/baptism_ban

 

 

Were you correct in guessing which side the ACLU was on?

 

 

SA

[Big_Dog 10]

SA,

 

No, I was not suprised, at least not after the way you baited us.

 

Ok, I was suprised they got involved, but you know what they say about atta-boys: "it only takes one you-know-what to wipe them out"

 

I guess I'm just in a happy mood, but I feel like a rousing chorus of:

 

Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends....

 

bd

[acco40 95]

The ACLU usually defends - big news flash here for the thought impaired - CIVIL LIBERTIES!

 

Now, when the majority defends an action there is rarely a need for the defense of a civil liberty. Often, when the action is not held in high esteem by the majority (such as flag burning), the need (as defined by some) to defend the civil liberty arises. Many times people have problems seeing the forest from the trees.

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"It would be one thing for the guy to not know what the law is; it's another thing for the prosecutor not to know what the law is,"

 

It seems that the prosecutor does know what the law is.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I wasn't surprised. I've mentioned this before. Several times in the past, people have asked why the ACLU never represents people challenging restrictions on their freedom to practice their religion, only people challenging religious practices by the government. The answer is, they represent people in "free exercise" cases all the time. I've pointed out that a number of these cases are listed on their web site. But I guess that's an inconvenient fact for those who try to demonize the ACLU, so they just ingore it.

[packsaddle 753]

NJ, ditto. hee hee hee hee.....