The Flag Burning Amendment

[erpowers]

The thing that really gets me about the flag burning amendment is that a large number of the people who support this amendment in Congress did not serve in the military. It just gets me that people like Orin Hatch, whose biography I skimed before I wrote this post, said that the American flag had to be defended but for some reason he decided not to join the military. Futhermore, some of the same people who support this flag burning amendment are the same people who would vote for a cut in veterans benefits and also vote to close down veterans hopitals.

[cboy4]

1. I can seemingly count the number of repukes who served in the military on

one damn finger.

I totally agree with you.

[rfranklin]

4. Then there are Great American Heroes like Ollie North....

Who provided missiles to Hezbollah and funded death squads who killed nuns and priests in Central America.

[havocmom]

2. What gets me is idiots wanting to change the Constitution for this

but we are STILL waiting for the ERA to be ratified.

This is, yet another, highly emotional distraction/wedge issue. Just another excuse to ignore all the horrible problems and conditions created by GOP policies. Just another diversion from the fact that the GOP has no solutions for the shit storms they have created. Just one more knee-jerk inspiring wedge non-issue the GOP will use to claim they stand for America in a year they sure as hell can't run on their record, which shows they have been destroying America.

The flag is important. But where's the fire?

Shouldn't Congress be WORKING on solving some pressing problems instead of frittering away what little time they spend in the office on pretend crisis?

The Flag Burning Amendment = The Terri's Law diversion for 06.

[zulchzulu]

3. No, it's really the "Jingoistic Anti-Dissent Amendment"

We need to frame this bullshit for what it is... jingoism and the same fear that the British had with American Revolutionaries who demanded freedom at all costs.

I'd call anyone who wants this amendment a goddamn Redcoat sucking on the toes of King George. Traitors!

[sinkingfeeling]

5. ATTENTION: there is no flag burning amendment being discussed.

Here is the entire amendment:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in Senate)

SJ 12 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 12

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 14, 2005

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. TALENT, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BURNS, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BOND, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. DEMINT, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HAGEL, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SPECTER, and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article --

`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.



THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display

[Idioteque]

9. Even worse...

That means that Congress can pass a law saying it's OK burn a flag if your intention is to dispose of it. On the other hand, if it is an act of protest, it is considered desecration. That is called a thought crime.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Duplicate after being told I couln't post from my computer!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. I don't agree.

If flag burning is bad, then it should be banned; if it isn't then it shouldn't be. Who the supporters of the ammendment are isn't relevant - what matters is whether they're right or wrong, not whether they served in the military or not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. The supporters are automatically wrong.

And the fact that they didn't serve speaks volumes.

[erpowers]

12. Missing the Point

My argument was that you can tell that the flag amendment is a piece of BS in that all these people who are saying the flag needs to be defended chose not to join the military and defend the flag. My point was that the argument given for the flag burning amendment is bogus.

[Breeze54]

10. The FBA is a crock of shit!

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=699965&ct=2664769

Playing Politics With the Flag

June 19, 2006

The U.S. Congress is closer than ever to passing a constitutional amendment that would criminalize desecration of the U.S. flag. If successful, it will mark the first time in 214 years that the Bill of Rights has been restricted by a constitutional amendment, and it will place the United States among a select group of nations that have banned flag desecration, including Cuba, China, Iran, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The amendment has already been approved by the necessary two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives. Now, aided by a handful of Democrats, the amendment has gathered 66 votes in favor, just one shy of passage. "Whether advocates can find the 67th vote to send the flag amendment to the states for ratification remains unclear." The Senate vote is expected next week. Take a stand now by signing up with Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment is the bedrock of our democracy. Defacing a flag is an act that most Americans find offensive and outrageous. It is also "an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution," as established by the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). Defending freedom of speech is easy when the speech is agreeable to all. A true test of the First Amendment comes when you must defend freedom of speech precisely for those views one finds offensive and outrageous. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, "I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away."

Congress is once again focusing their efforts on a nonproblem. Amendment supporters seek to restrict the Bill of Rights despite the fact that they "cannot point to a single instance of anti-American flag burning in the last 30 years," as the New York Times notes. "The video images that the American Legion finds so offensive to veterans and other Americans are either of Vietnam-era vintage or from other countries." Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), who opposes the amendment, has argued, "I don't want to amend the Constitution to solve a nonproblem. People are not burning the flag."

Weakening the Bill of Rights will do nothing to protect our men and women in uniform. Supporters of the amendment often invoke the sacrifice of our soldiers as a reason to ban flag burning. But as 23-year Navy veteran and American Progress fellow Lawrence Korb has written, Congress could help our veterans much more "by resisting the draconian measures advocated by the Bush administration that adversely impact our current and future veterans." Instead, many of the same conservatives pushing for the amendment have tried or succeeded in increasing veterans' health care costs, reducing hostile fire pay and family separation pay, closing commissaries and schools on military bases throughout our country, and many other draconian measures against our military.
To visit the Talking Points archives, please click here.

[Breeze54]

11. Forgot to add this!