quote:WASHINGTON - A constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning cleared the House Wednesday but faced an uphill battle in the Senate. An informal survey by The Associated Press suggested the measure doesn't have enough Senate votes to pass. The 286-130 outcome was never in doubt in the House, which had passed the measure or one like it five times in recent years. The amendment's supporters expressed optimism that a Republican gain of four seats in last November's election could produce the two-thirds approval needed in the Senate as well after four failed attempts since 1989.
*snip*
Supporters said there was more public support than ever because of emotions following the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They said detractors are out of touch with public sentiment.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."
*snip*
Critics accused the amendment's supporters of exploiting the attacks to trample the right to free speech.
"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents." said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center.
Hmm.
Just for reference, it was decided in Texas v. Johnson that flag-burning was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.
I'm not sure why this came up. Unless I missed something in the news, flag-burning hasn't been a major issue recently (I see why they're pursuing an amendment-- a simple law would be "unconstitional" because of the previous ruling, right?)
I suppose they targeted flag-burning because it is seen as a particularly offensive action. While burning the flag shows disrespect for it on some level, one might argue that it shows support for what the flag represents. People have fought and died under the flag-- but never for the flag itself. As Sen. Nalder said, it seems as if they are interested in protecting the symbol (the flag) more than what it symbolizes (the right to dissent).
In any case, I'm fairly certain that the best way to cause a sharp rise in flag-burning incidents is by trying to passing a law against it.
posted
Every now and then, when the politicos need some quick, visible patriotic fervor, this comes up again. It passes in the House and then fails in the Senate.
Not to say that it might not go through, though. It's an easy sell -- don't you think the flag of the United States should be protected? -- where that whole free speech thing has a definite hippy scent to it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahem- just wanted to point out that the Pentagon is not in Washington, D.C. It's in Virginia, which has voted Republican for the last sixty thousand years.
:distances himself further from the Republican party:
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the classic Simpson's episode, enjoy some quality education on the Amendment process:
quote: kid: Hey! Who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?
rolled up amendment: I'm not garbage.
(singing) I'm an amendment to be, yes an amendment to be, and I'm hopin' that they'll ratify me. There's a lot of flag burners who have got too much freedom. I wanna make it legal for policemen to beat 'em, cause there's limits to our liberties. 'Least I hope and pray that there are, cause those liberal freaks go too far.
kid: Well why can't we just make a law against flag burning?
Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we changed the Constitution...
kid: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
Amendment: Now you're catching on!
---
Bart: What the hell is this?
Lisa: It's one of those campy 70's throwbacks that appeals to Generation-X'ers.
Bart: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.
---
Kid: What if people say you're not good enough to be in the Constitution?
Amendment (singing): Then I'll crush all opposition to me, and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay. If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay.
Congressman: Good news, Amendment! They ratified ya! You're in the U.S. Constitution.
quote: Ahem- just wanted to point out that the Pentagon is not in Washington, D.C. It's in Virginia, which has voted Republican for the last sixty thousand years.
:distances himself further from the Republican party:
Us few democrats left in Virginia cling to the fact that it's only been 41 years since LBJ won...it's not much...but it's all we have...
On a side note, it's entirely possible that our next president will be a Virginian (Democratic Governor Mark Warner or Republic Senator George Allen).
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have a Republican governor across the river here in Maryland, partly because Democratic canidate's campaign was... well, pitiful. DC's entire metro area votes Democratic (The irony is that Reagan National Airport sits smack dab in the middle of one of the few areas that didn't vote for him). I'm not sure if it's because we influence DC, or DC influences us out here in the 'burbs.
It's like when time magazine does it's issue on weight/healthy living. There's nothing else to do.
Although surely Congress has something more important to do than banning flag burning, which, seriously, does very little good. People who want to burn the American flag aren't going to pay attention to Congress anyway!Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It never ceases to amaze me that the people who wrap themselves in Sept 11 could never hope to win an election in the parts of the country that were affected by that event. Both NYC congresspeople and both NY senators will vote against this amendment, and DC has no representation in the legislative branch.
Of course, D.C. wasn't hit in the attacks. Virginia was.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it is a federal enclave in the state of Virginia. The distinction is important. For example, Virginia criminal law is largely applicable on Pentagon property, even though it would be tried in federal court.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, D.C. wasn't hit in the attacks. Virginia was.
Dags, I think that you're nit-picking a bit. Yes, the Pentagon is in Virginia (Arlington), but they were supposedly aiming for D.C. (which is right across the river)
Also, the D.C. metro area is such a condensed metropolitan area that most people answer the "Where are you from?" question with "D.C."
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's nit-picking? The place is in Virginia. The plane was aimed at the Pentagon - in Virginia. There are two senators and a congressman that represent the district that was hit. There are congressmen who represent the majority of the people who work in that building. Adam's statement was wrong, and it was wrong in a way that was directly applicable to the point he was trying to make.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I make no claims to Adam's point. I was merely expressing my pov as a DC area resident.
And I'm still at a loss as to why I was nit-picking, since, whether you want to respond to it or not, I WAS responding to Adam's point and it was highly relevant.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
You are correct about the Pentagon plane. The fourth plane (United 93) was supposed to head for the White House or Capitol. This is according to the 9-11 Commission report (google 9-11 commission).
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The West Virginia legislature has sent many resolutions encouraging passage of this amendment. I imagine if it would pass that we’d be one of the first states to ratify it.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back around 1999, Senator Orrin Hatch came to my law school to speak to us. Up until that day, I had no particular beef with Hatch. In fact, I considered him the least offensive of all of Utah's congressmen.
It wasn't long before Hatch started talking about his support for a Constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning. He seemed to expect that most of his audience would be in agreement with him. We were not. I was frankly outraged. He completely lost my support that day.
I heard on the radio last night that Senate support may be greater than ever, and that the supporters are close to getting the 2/3 majority that they need. I really hope they don't. If they do, I am going to have to become more politically active than I ever have before, working against the passage of this amendment in the States.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Northern VA votes almost as heavily Democrat as southern NY.
Well, I don't know how heavily Democratic southern NY is-- but I do know that here, where I live in Northern Virginia, the democrats can't buy an election. In the last House of Representatives run off, they didn't even bother in my district. The opposition was an independent kook whose only hard stance was gun control (against it).
Adam, if you were sincere in your post, I'd like to see some numbers-- you may be right, and my long held view of the area will be changed.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they do, I am going to have to become more politically active than I ever have before, working against the passage of this amendment in the States.
Me, too. I do not want to see this enshrined in the Constitution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The House passes a lot of bills just because they know that the bills wont make it past the Senate. If the Senate actually gets that kind of support for this thing it'll be interesting to see what happens to the House vote.
I still find it simply incomprehensible (literally, as in I really can not comprehend) that 2/3s of congress would vote for this thing.
posted
From what I've read, this will be the best chance in years to try and pass the bill through the Senate, but I still think it will fall a few votes short.
Also, all 50 states (as of last weekend I believe, when the last hold out gave in) now have passed resolutions calling for some sort of sanctity of the flag. They don't specifically outlaw flag burning. It's a very vague resolution in most states, but I'm guessing if it ever came before the states, it'd pass in short order.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's the Senate that will stop it, because if they pass it, it's a done deal, I think.
Myself, despite being pretty solidly on the right side of the aisle, I oppose the amendment, because like Dag, I don't want to see such an obivous attack on the First Amendment in our constitution.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure would be a lot easier to just pass a law requiring that all American flags be made with flame retardant materials....
Still, this is an ammendment that takes away a priviledge given by the First Ammendment. That's just wrong on so many levels.
I hate to see someone burn a flag in protest, but that is the reaction it is supposed to evoke. Of course, some folks have flippantly burned flags over some minor issues.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I think flag burning is despicable, but I also think people should have the right to be despicable, so long as they aren't hurting others, and when you get past the symbolism, it's just cloth.
I have to think we'd stop a lot of the flag burning incidents if the majority of people that are offended by it just ignored the people burning the flag instead.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I wonder if it's considered desecretion when the flag appears on ties, scarves, socks, underwear, sweaters for small dogs, bathing suits, etc., etc., etc. ...
posted
Good, Flag burners are some of the lowliest forms of life in the World. Many many Americans and people of other nationalities have died for what that flag stands for. To burn the flag is to practically spit in the face of America.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see what makes burning a flag that different from just screaming, "SCREW AMERICA! I HATE THIS EFFING PLACE!" I mean, people are allowed to do the latter. What's so amazingly different about doing the former?
Don't get me wrong, I think people who burn flags are more than likely being big jerks when they do so. But I'm really not sure I can see any merit in outlawing the practice. If nothing else, it helps us identify who the jerks are ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
225 years ago that flag stood for rebellion, 200 years ago it stood for the slave trade, 150 years ago that flag stood for slavery and subjugation, 60 years ago it stood for imperialism (to a certain degree), 40 years ago it stood for separate but equal and racism. Now it stands for more imperialism, human rights and environmental violations, and smug superiority. At most points during those times, it stood for war.
At the same time it now stands for equality, liberty, freedom. Basically all the best parts of the declaration of independence. But the flag is hardly a shining beacon of truth that is historically a symbol for the best of American values.
I think the better point, is that previous flag burners over the last two centuries have been protesting the darkest parts of America's persona, and have constantly been making it better and better. Were it not for those protesters, you might not have the America you have today. Don't be so quick to silence them.
And I don't think the supreme court can strike it down, it's their job to judge the constitutionality of laws, not to judge the constitutionality of the constitution. Once Congress changes the constitution, the judges of the Supreme Court must uphold the augmented document.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Veela
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
