I don't understand this flag amendment...

[karlrschneider]

It supposedly give Congress the "authority" to write legislation prohibiting flag "desecration" - but why would they need a Constitutional amendment to do that if they wanted? Why couldn't they just do it anyway?

This doesn't make any sense to me.
:eyes:

[SteppingRazor]

1. Because without the amendment...

any such law would be ruled unconstitutional

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Grand sweeping gesture to appeal to the dumbest of the dumb

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Simple. Because the USSC has thrown it out about 3 times in the

past...ruling that their laws (and one from Texas) were un-Constitutional. By adding an amendment, then Congress can get around that question.

[chefgirl]

8. Ok, I have a question

So, if they try to ammend the Constitution, it has to be ratified by, what?, 2/3 of the States?
So this bullshit will last just long enough to get them through the current election year, right? Or am I misunderstanding?

-chef-

[arcane1]

11. you understand it perfectly n/t

[chefgirl]

14. Thanks arcane1

Just making sure. :)

-chef-

[karlrschneider]

12. Oh well I didn't realize it had ever been enacted.

...

[newscott]

4. The whole thing is a pointless election year exercise.

When we should be working on getting out of Iraq and rebuilding the South Coast, we are clogging up Congress with pointless talk about a flag. Typical and pointless.

[NC_Nurse]

5. Bullshit.

Plain and simple.

[havocmom]

6. Am thinkin the fine print might be worth looking into.

If they pass a law, the courts can strike it.\

I really believe they are setting the stage to call another constitutional convention, put the whole instrument on the table for vivisection and gutting. They have done SO MUCH illegal shit that they are getting to the point of having to encode a new system to cover their own asses.

Might be like ANWR is just a step to getting off shore drilling acceptable to people. Start tinkering with the Constitution here and there on highly emotional, but not important wedgies and pretty soon people are used to accepting letting them tinker with that too.

[sinkingfeeling]

13. No, if it's passed by the Senate (House has already done that) and

radified by 2/3 of the states, the courts can't touch it. That's why it has to be an amendment. The one they will vote on, actually says very little...

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.'.

[havocmom]

21. That's what I said. Law has beenstruck down by courts

so going for amendment

I understand the process. Have been working on ERA my entire adult life.

[rock]

7. SCROTUS currently says it's free speech

Oops, that's SCOTUS (or maybe not).

[novalib]

9. The Repukithugicans Want To Hold Power

It's soooooooooo easy.

The Repukithuglicans want desperately to hold onto power after November, 2006.

So, they want to charge up their base voters (the stupid and easily led who can't think for themselves).

So, they vote on a "flag burning" amendment to the Constitution.

Cynical and quite vile.

[arcane1]

10. you're using your BRAIN... use your GUT

your brain will tell you this is an empty symbolic attempt to seem patriotic to their declining backwash of supporters

your gut will tell you that burning the flag is wrong, and this amendment "feels" right

[sinkingfeeling]

15. Doesn't feel right to me. About as wrong as you can get, if you

respect the US Constitution.

[arcane1]

16. agreed. I was channeling Colbert

:silly:

[sinkingfeeling]

17. Oops, I failed the Colbert test!

[arcane1]

20. LMAO, it's easy to do!

Especially via text :)

[TahitiNut]

18. It's a can of worms.

In carving out a special Constitutional 'status' for the flag, coequal to human rights and an income tax, the manner of 'desecration' (e.g. burning, shredding, stomping) and the context (e.g. protest, sloth, commercial, artistic) will become legal entanglements that can preserve this as a wedge issue for generations to come, with case after case having to be brought to trial and appeal based on the inherent conflict that's created by such a brain-damaged amendment.

They hate us for our freedoms. :shrug:

What happens if a foreign visitor during the Olympics (when in the US) demonstrates fan "loyalty" by stomping on an American flag. Will the flags of other nations receive fair treatment? Of course not.

How will SCOTUS treat a law that imposes stricter prohibitions on political dissent (the most important form of speech) than on commericial exploitation or other non-political actions?

[ComerPerro]

19. Its designed to fail

Consider this:

They propose the amendment, but it fails.

One, it makes it look like Republicans are trying to preserve our sacred flag, and anyone who voted against this is unAmerican.

Two, it reminds people that a Republican majority in both houses, Repub appointees on the Supreme Court, and a Repub president isn't enough. The red state morons will realize that we need sweeping changes to give Bush more control and give Republicans even more power.

Three, it lets them blame Democrats on everything. Sure, the Republicans haven't done a damn thing to benifit average people. But now they can embrace victimhood while still being the majority. They can say that they want to do things, but are always thwarted by the evil Dems. Oh, the crime! They have a majority but they are being oppressed!