Take that you stupid flag!

[edczxcvbnm]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/...o/flag_burning

WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

By a 286-130 vote — eight more than needed — House members approved the amendment after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.

Approval of two-thirds of the lawmakers present was required to send the bill on to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in years. If the amendment is approved in that chamber by a two-thirds vote, it would then move to the states for ratification.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said, "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."

The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.

Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37.

But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.

By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.

I thought that this was quite interesting news that this may pass for once. I believe now it is the 8th time this has passed the house and moves on to the senate.

What does everyone think about this admendment? It is going to far? BLAH BLAH BLAH?

On another note who knows how the ratification process works for the states? Do the citizens get to vote or what?

[CloudSquallandZidane]

I wouldnt be against a ban on the descration of the flag. Seriously i think there are some forms of free speech that should not be allowed.

[I Don't Need A Name]

this might be a bit off topic but American Idiot- Green Day was banned for defacing the flag (coloured it in green!)

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Disgusting. As if they haven't killed enough of our rights.

[Cuchulainn]

You cannot criminalise someone destroying their own property. I can't believe people could be advocating this, I understand it can be viewed with bad taste but so can the KKK marching.
You're in danger of sitting back & slowly letting your government turn America into a police state. Leaders of the free world? It's slipping fast people.

[nik0tine]

I agree. This is absolutely abhorrent. Why are we worried about desecrating the flag when our own politicians are desecrating our rights!?

[edczxcvbnm]

Well if this manages to pass the senate then it will go on to the states and I believe every state but vermont has passed some sort of legistlation asking congress to get them this amendment.

The only way to prevent this is to mail(not e-mail) your senator a letter telling them how you feel on this and what you think and tell them not to do it(or do it depending on your stance). E-Mail doesn't work but hundreds of letters do work. If it is hand written it is even better.

[nik0tine]

It truly pisses me off to think that they are passing laws based on a concept as shallow as patriotism. Patriotism ahs done nothing but kill people, and I want my constitution to stay as far away from it as possible. Patriotism is blind, it's arrogant, and it's downright stupid, yet we pass laws restricting peoples freedom based off of something as lowly as this? Please.

[Cloud No.9]

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

that is the height of total stupiduty? somehow flag burning would have stopped 9-11? that it had anything to do with it? yes all these nasty muslims do it. but this law has no concequence for them anyway (america doesn't yet control the rest of the world). it is yet again 9-11 being held up for stupid patriots to get behind. to think that it may protect somene or something.

terrorism is so many times brought out to pass laws. this is just another. it is obvious it is totally irrelevant. but yet again it is used. and for what use? the reichstag fire and the growing threat of communism and jews? no sorry that was another country that used the same thing over and over again to change it's constitution......... and america is nothing like that.. *cough*

the small quote sums up american politics since 9-11. it's wrong, ignorant, manipulative and somehow still believed.......

[Cuchulainn]

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that has never been so clear here. By waving the proverbial 9/11 references, it's guaranteed to get emotions & views, which truely do not belong in this discussion, to push this through. The American public will be sancimoniously smiling it's way to a police state & by the time the masses suddenly notice what's being done, it will bring about a civil war, the like of which we have never seen.

[DocFrance]

I hope this doesn't pass, and I doubt it will. Burning the flag, as despicable as it is, is a form of speech that should be protected. Banning the burning of the flag is one step short of saying "Dissidence will not be tolerated."

Besides, Constitutional amendments are meant to protect rights, not limit them.

[Cloud No.9]

can i ask why burning thr flag is so bad anyway?

in britain it's actually illegal to go around breaking or altering stuff with the queens face on, like money, stamps etc. (are those souvenior things that press the coin into an oval with a stmp on it legal?) but that has to do withe the fact that they are also legal tender. yes even stamps.

is it really such a big deal? to deface a coin? to burn a flag? what's despicable about it?

[edczxcvbnm]

To destory currency is bad because it can mess up how much it is worth. People think there is x out there but there is really y.

Stamps...that is just smurfing retarded.

[Optium]

Thank God I'll be out of this country in a few months.

.opt

[Psychotic]

I can't see what people hope to achieve by burning the flag these days. It's happened so many times that it's really not that shocking. All that would be achieved is the irritation of die-hard patriots, and their upset gains nothing, except that it makes them campaign even more fervently for flag burning to be banned, and we all know that as those are the Republicans' target voters, they will be listened to.

As for banning the flag's desecration, again I would like to know what that ultimately achieves. The intention is to prevent the desecration of the flag, but ironically it would probably result in more acts of desecration due to people protesting against this amendment.

One of the key principles of America is freedom of speech, but then when people want to exercise that freedom of speech against America, how can they complain that their rights as American citizens are being taken away when they are campaigning against America and what it stands for in the first place? When you burn the flag, you're taking a stand against everything that America stands for, and that includes freedom of speech, democracy and liberty. You can easily say that burning the flag could be an attempt to show opposition to something else, such as President Bush or the war with Iraq, but neither Bush nor the war are America. If you want to show opposition to them, then burn a photo of Bush instead.

Although on the other hand it can be asked that how can Congress be opposed to those taking action against the principles on which the US prides itself when they themselves are ignoring a key principle of the US? To be honest, what they are doing is practically as anti-American as burning the flag.

Neither side has a particularly strong argument in my opinion, and to be honest I don't really care one way or the other if the amendment passes, because it really isn't that big of a deal.