• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senate opens flag-burning debate

Anyway, this is the sort of lazy, superficial patriotism that the GOP is all about these days.

Truly, a Colbert Report moment come to life. Ahhhh, the U.S. flag: a glorious patriotic symbol that your gut tells you represents all that is right with the America and the world. Which of course trumps the U.S. Consitution, which has all those words and amendments and requires you to think with your brain, not your heart.

Senate opens flag-burning debate
Vote expected before Fourth of July congressional recess

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate began debate Monday on a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit the desecration of the American flag, the latest in a series of election-year votes pushed by the chamber's Republican leaders.

Observers give the flag amendment a better chance of passing than the one to ban same-sex marriages that was defeated earlier this month.

That was another vote aimed at mobilizing the GOP's conservative base before November's midterm elections.

A vote is expected this week, before the Fourth of July congressional recess.

Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, compared the measure to Supreme Court decisions banning so-called "fighting words," slander, libel, obscenity and pornography involving children. As such, he said, it has no "social value."

"Flag burning is a form of expression that is spiteful or vengeful," the five-term Pennsylvania Republican said during the debate. "It is designed to hurt. It is not designed to persuade."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, argued that burning the American flag was precisely the kind of speech the First Amendment is meant to protect.

"The First Amendment never needs defending when it comes to popular speech," the six-term Vermont senator said. "It's when it comes to unpopular speech that it needs defending."

He called the efforts to pass the amendment "electioneering rallying cries" that struck at the heart of what the Constitution and the flag represent.

"I would hope that all of us in this chamber champion liberty ... but when I hear some talk about cutting back on our First Amendment rights, you can see why people would wonder," Leahy said.

Democrats are not the only ones against the amendment. It also does not have the support of the Senate's No 2. Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

"I think the First Amendment has served us well for over 200 years. I don't think it needs to be altered," McConnell said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The proposed amendment would roll back a 1989 Supreme Court decision that struck down state flag-desecration laws.

The 5-4 ruling found that burning the flag was a political statement and laws barring it were an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.

The amendment, which has been rejected before, would become the 28th to the Constitution. It reads: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

The measure has the support of 56 percent of those surveyed in a CNN poll earlier this month, while 40 percent of the respondents opposed it. The poll surveyed 1,031 adults and has a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the proposal on an 11-7 vote June 15. All 10 of the committee's Republicans and one Democrat -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California -- supported the measure.

As set forth by the Constitution, a two-thirds vote of those present in each chamber of Congress is required for an amendment to be sent to the states for ratification. It must then be ratified within seven years by at least three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 state legislatures.

The House of Representatives passed the proposed amendment last year 286-130. It needs 67 votes to pass the Senate, if all 100 senators are present.

All 50 states have formally requested that Congress approve a flag protection amendment to the Constitution.

Linkage
 
They do this because it works. Flag burning and gay marriage and non-binding resolutions on Iraq are all excellent wedge issues for Republicans, it doesn't require them to DO anything, but a lot of conservative voters are tricked into thinking it means the Republicans share their values. And I say tricked because the only time Republicans share conservative American's values is when there is some easy fix or, even better, just a bunch of words they can spew at random intervals. You'll note, for example, that illegal immigration, an EXTREMELY hot button issue for conservatives, is getting a much more tepid response from the Republicans...mostly because it actually requires leadership and making some hard decisions.

This kind of crap won't stop until people who support these wedge issues realize these fairly minor things are being used to distract them from important issues.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
This kind of crap won't stop until people who support these wedge issues realize these fairly minor things are being used to distract them from important issues.

What important issues???

The Economy is perfect.

No Political strife.

Won the War on Terrer.

Free willful spying on own citizens.

It's a Republican Utopia.
 
I consider myself patriotic, and treat our flag with utmost respect. Flag burning pisses me off, and I saw a lot of it in the '60s. But, one of the great things about this country is we let you say you hate it if you want. I think anybody for this deal needs a civics lesson or some brain food. The politicians pushing this are fools or idiots if they really belive this needs to be done, and worse if it is just a scam for votes.

The Constitution is critical to the continued success of our nation and should only be modified when there is an oportunity to make us a better nation. Careful thought, enlightened debate, and cool heads are what we should require before taking such a serious step.

Those who ignore it, or consider it a triffling matter to tamper with it discust me.
 
Has anyone ever seen a flag being burned? I have never heard of such a thing except in the ME and maybe the 60s. Thank GOD for the GOP.
 
There was actually a flag-burning here in Portland not too long ago..one of three incidents that's occured in the U.S. over a year I believe. Three whole burnings? Wow, we really need this amendment.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Has anyone ever seen a flag being burned? I have never heard of such a thing except in the ME and maybe the 60s. Thank GOD for the GOP.

When I was younger and in Boy Scouts, I was at a ceremony where they were burning old and extremely tattered flags.
 
Originally posted by: Strk

When I was younger and in Boy Scouts, I was at a ceremony where they were burning old and extremely tattered flags.

That is the only accepted way of destroying unserviceable flags. The federal government burns thousands of flags per year.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Strk

When I was younger and in Boy Scouts, I was at a ceremony where they were burning old and extremely tattered flags.

That is the only accepted way of destroying unserviceable flags. The federal government burns thousands of flags per year.


Don Vito is correct. Proper Disposal of a flag is by burning it


Preferably after these fools wrap themselves in it to proclaim their alledged 'Patriotism'.

 
if this got all the way to becoming an amendment (which it wont) get ready to see a huge INCREASE in flag burning.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I consider myself patriotic, and treat our flag with utmost respect. Flag burning pisses me off, and I saw a lot of it in the '60s. But, one of the great things about this country is we let you say you hate it if you want. I think anybody for this deal needs a civics lesson or some brain food. The politicians pushing this are fools or idiots if they really belive this needs to be done, and worse if it is just a scam for votes.

The Constitution is critical to the continued success of our nation and should only be modified when there is an oportunity to make us a better nation. Careful thought, enlightened debate, and cool heads are what we should require before taking such a serious step.

Those who ignore it, or consider it a triffling matter to tamper with it discust me.

I totally agree.

Can we send these clowns a bill for the taxpayers' money wasted on this nonsense? I'd rather see the doors of the Senate shuttered than to waste their time and our money on such foolish grandstanding.

What's next? Banning bra burning? (I saw a lot more of that than flag burning back in the day).

 
haha gay marriage ban failed, time for plan B from the "How to distract the masses of idiots" handbook
 
Desperate much? The GOP is playing all their last ditch wild-cards.
Gays? no action.
Damn Mexicans? uh oh, better put this one away... Maybe we'll just settle for an English only thing...

Oh God, what to do! Poll #'s still falling! Can't we cut some taxes? Lotta rich people still love us...Damn they are only 1%!!

I know... Let's do the flag burning amendment! Night after night Americans are assulted on their news programs with hordes of dirty hippies burning flags! Surely this will save us!... uh... I mean America!! (oh noes don't make us play the abortion card or affirmative action card.. its still only June...Can't we go to Yellow Alert?! Least till Aug?)
 
Next up on the "Distraction From All That Really Matters '06" Tour is adoption by gay couples. I'm not kidding. Watch.
 
So what's next? An ammendment making it against the law to burn or desecrate money. Arrest cashiers for making marks on paper bills. How about an ammendment making it against the law to take Bush's name in vain.
 
Originally posted by: conehead433
So what's next? An ammendment making it against the law to burn or desecrate money. Arrest cashiers for making marks on paper bills. How about an ammendment making it against the law to take Bush's name in vain.

That wouldn't be an ammendment, that would be the Eleventh Commandment.
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: conehead433
So what's next? An ammendment making it against the law to burn or desecrate money. Arrest cashiers for making marks on paper bills. How about an ammendment making it against the law to take Bush's name in vain.

That wouldn't be an ammendment, that would be the Eleventh Commandment.

Punishable by stoning 😉
 
Back
Top