Flag Protection Amendment

[WriterDom]

I'm afraid I'm on the left side of this issue. Even though half the democrats did support it in the house. Don't we have more pressing issues than flag burning? What ever happened to free speech and expression? I guess it's a good thing that our constitution is so difficult to amend.



House Approves Flag Protection Amendment
Photos
by Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives, undeterred by four Senate rejections in the past decade, on Tuesday approved a proposed constitutional amendment designed to forbid the burning of the American flag.

On a 298-125 vote, the House sent the measure to the Senate, which was expected to again refuse to pass it, maintaining the proposal would infringe on First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and expression.

Rep. Duke Cunningham, a California Republican and a chief sponsor, said he hoped the Senate would approve the measure this time.

``I hope this vote and backing of veterans resounds loud and strong with (Senate Democratic leader Tom) Daschle and those lefties over there that oppose this,'' Cunningham said.

But some Senate Republican conservatives also are lined up against the measure, including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

In a recent letter to House Republicans, McConnell wrote, ''It would be unfortunate if we began tampering with the important and fundamental protection of the First Amendment because of a handful of malcontents,'' as he referred to flag burners.

For a constitutional amendment to become law, it must win the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate and then be ratified by 38 of the 50 states.

WOULD PROHIBIT DESECRATING FLAG

The House-passed measure, which Cunningham said has the support of President Bush (news - web sites), would empower Congress to pass legislation prohibiting the burning or any other desecration of the flag.

The amendment was first introduced in response to a 1989 Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law against flag desecration and a 1990 decision that ruled unconstitutional a flag protection law passed by Congress.

The amendment fell four votes short in the Senate last year after sailing through the House 305-124.

The House voted again following spirited debate.

``Most Americans look to the flag as a symbol of our unity, our sovereignty and our democracy,'' Rep. John Linder (news - bio - voting record), a Georgia Republican, said in pushing for passage.

``If we prohibit the destruction of U.S. currency by law then surely protecting our symbol of freedom and democracy can be just as important,'' Linder said.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (news - bio - voting record), a Florida Democrat, said while he deplored desecration of the flag, ``I firmly believe that passing this constitutional amendment would abandon the very values and principles that this country was founded on.''

Hastings quoted Bush's secretary of state, Colin Powell (news - web sites), a retired four-star general who opposed the measure in 1999 as saying, ``I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying long after they have slunk away.''

The House has passed such a proposed constitutional amendment in each two-year session of Congress since Republicans won control of the chamber in 1994.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I agree. It is Free Speech as abhorrent as it is, similar to the cross in urine statement.

Now an amendment making it legal to shoot flag-burners, or at least make it a misdemeaner, now that is a thought!





















And for our newbies, I do not advocate shooting anyone on the left. It's a joke. Maybe a poor one. I think I need to work on my delivery, or timing, or material, or something...

 

[Jonesmeister]

The push to ban flag burning, led by the American Legion, is the single greatest threat to the American way currently visible.

What kind of a nimrod can't see the difference between the piece of cloth and the thing it stands for?

The freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a free society. Take that away and the other freedoms guaranteed by the constitution don't mean anything.

Freedom's not cheap. To have it, you have to be tolerant. You have to allow people to express themselves, even if you don't agree with them. Yes, that's right! You have to allow people to say things even if you don't like hearing it!

 

[p_p_man]

I'll write some posts for you!!

It's a joke. Maybe a poor one. I think I need to work on my delivery, or timing, or material, or something...

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I have never understood this issue.

Do you know how many flags have been burnt (in public demonstrations) in American history? Less than 200. And most of those were during the Vietnam War.

Think about it. In over two centuries of American History the flag has been burned in demonstrations just a couple hundred times. THIS IS A PROBLEM?

Even if it were a problem, even if it did offend our sensibilities to the point where legislation were needed, why the HELL are they jumping to the Constitution? There are, oh, gee, I don't know, maybe a thousand other steps on the ladder you could take first.

There's a reason there are only a couple dozen Amendments to the Constituion -- because it SHOULD be hard to add to the document. It SHOULD be difficult to actually amend our central federal authority. It SHOULD be a pain in the ass to change the fundamental defining nature of our government. The reason is SHOULD be hard is to keep bullshit feel-good bills like this from becoming the law of the land.

And finally, I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that the very ideals the flag represents INCLUDES the right to symbolize dissent by burning it. A naitonal amendment against flag burning would lessen the freedoms the flag represents. A national amendment against flag burning is a bigger desecration than any stars and stripes bonfire I could ever come up with.

And if such an amendment ever IS passed, get your videocamers ready folks, because there's going to be a Star Spangled holocaust in every town square from sea to shining sea. Everyone who can even spell ACLU will be buying souvenier flags and Zippo lighters by the gross, and the Amendment will be overturned faster than you can say "Prohibition".

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Dixon Carter Lee
I have never understood this issue.

Do you know how many flags have been burnt (in public demonstrations) in American history? Less than 200. And most of those were during the Vietnam War.

Think about it. In over two centuries of American History the flag has been burned in demonstrations just a couple hundred times. THIS IS A PROBLEM?

Leave it to DCL to jump on the trivial red herring idea of freedom. Is everybody missing the real point here or what?

People, get a grip! What's sacrificing a little first amendment freedom mean after all?

I mean, really, 200 flags! Do you realize how much green house gas that puts into the atmosphere? It must be at least as much, maybe more, than all of California's nuclear plants combined!

We have a global warming crisis, these flag burnings will only aggravate the problem, so if a few freedoms must be sacrificed, isn't it worth it?

 

[miles]

Unclebill Unclebill Unclebill Unclebill

You ARE the fucking man!!!!!!

 

[miles]

Dildo Statement of the Year Award - Sen. Henry Hyde

. "Vandalizing a no-parking sign is a misdemeanor, but burning a flag is a hate crime, because burning the flag is an expression of contempt for the moral unity of the American people," said Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.


Is this douche bag smoking crack??????

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

And don't think the wording of the proposed amendment is specific to a piece of cloth sailing over the courthouse. If passed as written an actual legal argument could be made about the criminality of cutting into an ice cream cake made of a flag. Yup. The bill is THAT stupid.

 

[Nogard]

Uncle Bill is back..........Fire up the gas furnaces

 

[Mischka]

I'm afraid I'm on the left side of this issue.

If it's any consolation, WD, this isn't a wholly leftist stance. The most conservative Supreme Court Justices support the idea of flag burning as protected by the First Amendment.

I attended a lecture by Scalia where he said that the morning after the Court rendered their opinion, he walked downstairs to breakfast, only to find the Washington Post on the kitchen table, opened to an article that proclaimed, "The Supreme Court OKs Flag Burning" while his wife was pouring pancakes on the griddle and humming the Star Spangled Banner. She has to be quite the spitfire to put up with him (as well as bear their nine children).

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Dixon Carter Lee
And don't think the wording of the proposed amendment is specific to a piece of cloth sailing over the courthouse. If passed as written an actual legal argument could be made about the criminality of cutting into an ice cream cake made of a flag. Yup. The bill is THAT stupid.

Dix, with the lawyers we have today, just about anyone could make a legal argument for anything and not encounter a judge with enough common sense or spine to throw it out of court.

Like the morons who sever or mangle their limbs with a chain saw and then sue the manufacturer. This seems to jump out of memory as one of the stupider examples I've heard in awhile.

And people wonder why the American legal system is what it is! Perhaps this is a clue.

Originally posted by miles
"Vandalizing a no-parking sign is a misdemeanor, but burning a flag is a hate crime, because burning the flag is an expression of contempt for the moral unity of the American people," said Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.

Hate crime? Sounds like he's trying to drum up support among the Liberal contingent. This is reaching into the "political crimes" domain.

 

[Jonesmeister]

"Hate Crime" is a whacked idea, too.

Let's punish someone for breaking the law, but increase the punishment depending on what he was thinking about at the time of his offense. That makes a lot of sense.

In a free society, you should be allowed to hate anybody you want to hate.

You don't have the right to go up to somebody you hate and hit him in the head with a brick, but no one should be punished for his opinion or belief or attitude.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

That's Right!

I've always said Hate Speech is free speech too!

Notice how people will only use hate speech among friends and allies...