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.
--j_k
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Eh, the house does this every few months.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
I actually watched the vote on c-span today. They do this all the time though. It won't lead anywhere.
Don't you just love politicians?
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
How else are we going to get terrorists to stop burning the flag? Huh? Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't have any better ideas, do you?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I say a Constitutional Amendment should be written to outlaw burning the Bible.
I wonder how many Christians will burn Harry Potter 6 come July 16?
Six is the evilest of all the numbers.
I burn with desire for Jessica Alba.
She must be a Veela.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun:
She must be a Veela.
Veela
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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:
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
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.
Amendment: Oh yeah! Door's open, boys.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
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).
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
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.
--j_k
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Eh, the house does this every few months.
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! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, technically it was the USA... I would assume the Pentagon is federal property, and as such isn't really part of any state.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
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."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
The plane was aimed at the
EDIT: Capitol (Not the White House). The Pentagon was a target of oppurtunity.
I make no claims to Adam's point. I was merely expressing my pov as a DC area resident.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The plane was aimed at the White House. The Pentagon was a target of oppurtunity
No, it wasn't. There was supposed to be a fifth plane aimed at the White House.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Actually we both missed part of this.
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).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, the fourth plane was Capitol, the intended fifth the White House.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Oh, c'mon Dag, you can't use CBS, of all people, to back up a factual claim!
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
At least they're doing this instead of trying to pass an anti-same-sex marriage amendment...
Though I'd rather they spent their time cutting social programs.
Politics... even when you win, you lose.
Pix
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> 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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Sheesh. First this then no bra burning. It's a slippery slope, guys. A sliiiipery slope.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
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.
Hobbes Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
How many states does it take to ratify an amendment to make it into the constitution? It takes more than just a house/senate vote, right?
-Katarain
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
It has to be unanimous. Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
38 states have to ratify the amendment for it to pass.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
They would get 38, easy.
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.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Sure would be a lot easier to just pass a law requiring that all American flags be made with flame retardant materials....
This is a brilliant idea.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
What does it take to get a state to ratify an amendment? Is it popular vote or a similar house/senate vote?
Because I'd vote against it.
-Katarain
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
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. ...
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So would this outlaw the practice of retiring or cutting a flag when it is too tattered to use anymore?
Really the only difference is the intent of the person acting on it. How do you regulate that?
Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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 ...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
[ June 23, 2005, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Nice post, Lyrhawn .
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:100 years ago it stood for the slave trade
The American slave trade of 1905?
EDIT: Ya fixed it Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
how many flags are burned anyway?
and couldn't the supreme court strike it down too?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thanks Puppy, had a little typo problem.
Thanks Teshi!
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sorry, Pixiest, but I can't take any position you espouse seriously when you make up stupid crap like that. I was going to be nice about your drawing style, but since you seem to feel that insulting an entire people group is okie dokie, I'm dropping the act. You draw like a 6th grader. Your sense of proportion and color are terrible. Whatever political statement you may have been trying to convey is lost in the camouflage (there's a French word I'm sure you've used on many occassions) of your complete lack of natural talent.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
So if someone has a pair of swim trunks with the flag on it and they burn them, will they get arrested?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wearing swim trunks with the flag on them would count as flag desecration.
Thus, a fasion faux paus would now really be illegal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You get lots of enjoyment out of being so acerbic, don't you, Primal Curve? I mean, it's not like Pixiest was really imposing on you by letting your inner Simon out, was she?
And I'm not sure you understood what point she was trying to make well enough to feel she was insulting the people you think she was-certainly she called the vote stupid.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I'm fairly conservative. Not to mention the fact that I think flag burning is inappropriae. But, I would be embarrassed if there was an anti-flag burning amemndment.
It's silly and petty.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Isn't burning a flag the only way to properly dispose of it? If this amendment passes, will stuffing the post-July 4th mini American flags into trash cans with dirty diapers and stale pizza be the acceptable alternative?
quote: So if someone has a pair of swim trunks with the flag on it and they burn them, will they get arrested?
This gets to my problem with the amendment. How are they going to prosecute people who burn a flag? With fines? Prison time? Dismemberment?
Besides, if someone really wanted to desecrate a flag, they could find other ways than burning. My evil mastermind is coming up with a couple right now. Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote:This gets to my problem with the amendment. How are they going to prosecute people who burn a flag?
Castration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The amendment empowers Congress to prohibit "flag desecration." This means proper burning would not be affected, and other means of desecrating will be prohibitible.
Imagine the legal squabbling over "flag" and "desecration."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Methinks the SC might be awfully tempted to rule that any form of political speech could not, by nature, be desecration . . .
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Wouldn't that just be hilarious!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How are they going to prosecute people who burn a flag? With fines? Prison time? Dismemberment?
Burning at the stake would be fitting, no?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And I'm not sure you understood what point she was trying to make well enough to feel she was insulting the people you think she was-certainly she called the vote stupid.
Do you get enjoyment out of being so obtuse? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why, thank you, PC. I hadn't recognized that was the flag of France.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Technically, she's not burning any country's flag. If it were France's flag, the blue would be on the hoist side of the flag. There are no known countries with a tri-color; red, white and blue flag with red on the hoist side. I think, in this case, I'll chalk it up to extreme cultural illiteracy on Pixiest's part.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Shocking!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
From dictionary.com.
quote: des·e·crate Audio pronunciation of desecrate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ds-krt) tr.v. des·e·crat·ed, des·e·crat·ing, des·e·crates
To violate the sacredness of; profane.
[de- + (con)secrate.]dese·crater or dese·crator n. dese·cration n.
v 1: violate the sacred character of a place or language; "desecrate a cemetary"; "violate the sanctity of the church"; "profane the name of God" [syn: profane, outrage, violate] 2: remove the consecration from a person or an object [syn: deconsecrate] [ant: consecrate]
This amendment would officially elevate the flag to sacred status. I don't know who should be more offended, those religious, or those areligious.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Exactly, Glenn. It's a ridiculous idea in and of itself, without bringing in free speech.
Add free speech, and the argument is compelling. Although I think regulations on open fires which are enforced in an even-handed fashion should be able to legally prevent flag burning as a safety regulation. But such a regulation would have to be viewpoint neutral.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
What I like is how we're curtailing the rights of people to protect the rights of objects.
-o-
quote:Although I think regulations on open fires which are enforced in an even-handed fashion should be able to legally prevent flag burning as a safety regulation.
I don't see how this would be true. What if one burns a carefully folded flag in a barbecue?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If barbecues are allowed in that location, then it couldn't be banned. If barbecues aren't allowed, then it shouldn't be allowed because someone intends the act to be expressive.
If someone could legally burn a blank piece of cloth in that location and in the same manner, then they should be allowed to burn a flag.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Politicians are stupid.
They've become the most worthless profession in America.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:What if one burns a carefully folded flag in a barbecue?
It just doesn't have the same feeling attached to it .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: I strongly disagree. Expressive (especially politically expressive) activities should enjoy further protection than non-expressive activities, just as many religious activities enjoy greater protection than otherwise identical non-religious activities (peyote anyone?).
If someone could burn a flag there without endangering anybody or having a danger to start a fire, even if there's a general ban on burning things except in approved locations, they should be able to burn a flag in political protest there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Or like schools can disallow modifications to uniforms but be forced to allow politically expressive armbands and similar.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: just as many religious activities enjoy greater protection than otherwise identical non-religious activities (peyote anyone?)
Funny you should say that, since peyote use in religious ceremonies does NOT enjoy constitutional protection.
quote:If someone could burn a flag there without endangering anybody or having a danger to start a fire
I would argue that this almost can't exist in a public space, especially with people around angry enough to burn the flag. A burning piece of cloth, usually soaked with a flammable liquid, has at minimum a pretty serious chance of blowing into someone.
As to danger of starting a fire, who's best qualified to decide that? A judge or a fire marshall?
There is a standard delineation between traditional means of communication (leafletting, holding signs, picketing, soapboxing, etc.) and other activities intended to be permissive. The former may not be restricted without a compelling state interest. The latter may not be restricted in a viewpoint discriminatory or non-content-neutral fashion.
Burning anything falls into the second category pretty easily.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that wrt peyote.
There are people who burn the flag when they're not in any sort of violent anger, just as there are those who calmly handcuff themselves to fences (not saying that is or should be legal, but that it happens).
I'd be perfectly fine with the fire marshal performing a specific assessment of the situation and the judge using that to determine whether the burning of the flag violated criminal codes .
I just think that its too easy for the government to infringe on expressive rights given the ability to make such general bans which encroach on expression.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I don't necessarily think this is the standard, I think it should be the standard.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As an aspirational goal, the government should allow it to the greates extent possible. But, whereas I think banning a person from handing out leaflets in a park open to the public is as close to never acceptable as any use of the word "neve" I can think of, the banning of open flames is necessary in enough situations that the burden of showing the safety in the face of a general ban should be on the people wishing to conduct the burning, not the government.
Judicial examination on a rational basis of the need for the ban and on a strict scrutiny standard with respect to sham justifications or discriminatory application is perfectly acceptable. But a specific showing of danger in the instance should not be necessary for defending a general, evenly applied rule.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:But, whereas I think banning a person from handing out leaflets in a park open to the public is as close to never acceptable as any use of the word "neve" I can think of
I don't know, I find Neve Campbell pretty unacceptable
[hands Dagonee a free coupon to make fun of my next typo]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't know, I find Neve Campbell pretty unacceptable
As a former Party of Five fan, I'm not sure this is forgivable.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Veela
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)