Senate Rejects Anit-Flag Burning Ammendment

[FunBobPants]

WASHINGTON (AP) - A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress.
The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.
President Bush, who supports the amendment, called the failed vote unfortunate and commended Republicans and Democrats who voted to move the ratification process forward. In a statement, Bush said he continued to believe that ``the American people deserve the opportunity to express their views on this important issue.''
The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, read: ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''
It represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.
``Countless men and women have died defending that flag,'' said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. ``It is but a small humble act for us to defend it.''
Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. And some Democrats complained that majority Republicans were exploiting people's patriotism for political advantage in the midterm elections.
``Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice,'' said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.
``While I take offense at disrespect to the flag,'' he said, ``I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech.''
Among possible presidential contenders in 2008, six voted yes: Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana and Republicans George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Frist, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and John McCain of Arizona. Five, all Democrats, voted no: Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, John Kerry of Massachusetts.

IMO, im glad it didnt pass. http://channels.netscape.com/news/s...53&idq=/ff/story/0001/20060627/2201403439.htm

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's not the matter of the amendment that disgusts me (personally I think that we should treat the flag with respect, but I don't think that the Constitution should have amendments that restrict freedoms of any kind be gay marriage, flag burning, Prohibition, etc.), it's the fact that Congress is wasting it's time on stupid issues such as this when there are much more important issues to deal with.

 

[FunBobPants]

yeah. but its more disgusting that Anna Nicole Smith got a SUPREME COURT trial

 

[Man-Thing]

Why shouldn't Anna Nichole Smith get a supreme court hearing?

 

[Danger Mouse]

Why shouldn't Anna Nichole Smith get a supreme court hearing?

It's disgusting that I'm not representing her.

 

[Superman]

It's not the matter of the amendment that disgusts me (personally I think that we should treat the flag with respect, but I don't think that the Constitution should have amendments that restrict freedoms of any kind be gay marriage, flag burning, Prohibition, etc.), it's the fact that Congress is wasting it's time on stupid issues such as this when there are much more important issues to deal with.

I agree.

 

[BlackSymbiote]

It's not the matter of the amendment that disgusts me (personally I think that we should treat the flag with respect, but I don't think that the Constitution should have amendments that restrict freedoms of any kind be gay marriage, flag burning, Prohibition, etc.), it's the fact that Congress is wasting it's time on stupid issues such as this when there are much more important issues to deal with.

The Constitution is there to limit the power of the federal government (or state government as the case may be), NOT the rights of the people.

 

[Addendum]

What the flag stands for is more important than the flag itself.

 

[Sandman138]

It's not the matter of the amendment that disgusts me (personally I think that we should treat the flag with respect, but I don't think that the Constitution should have amendments that restrict freedoms of any kind be gay marriage, flag burning, Prohibition, etc.), it's the fact that Congress is wasting it's time on stupid issues such as this when there are much more important issues to deal with.

 

[Man-Thing]

The Constitution is there to limit the power of the federal government (or state government as the case may be), NOT the rights of the people.

what a silly comment...

The constitution says that all men have a right to life, therefore if you are a murderer, expect the feds to come knocking on your door.

 

[hippie_hunter]

what a silly comment...

The constitution says that all men have a right to life, therefore if you are a murderer, expect the feds to come knocking on your door.

What the hell? That is not a silly comment. It is true. The Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government so that it would not become "tyranical" like the British.

Other laws are what helps other people from violating other people's rights. The Constitution gives the government the right to arrest people for murder because it is the murderer violated the person's who was killed right to life. The Constitution gives the government the power to protect our rights not only from the government itself, but from individuals as well.

 

[jaguarr]

It's not the matter of the amendment that disgusts me (personally I think that we should treat the flag with respect, but I don't think that the Constitution should have amendments that restrict freedoms of any kind be gay marriage, flag burning, Prohibition, etc.), it's the fact that Congress is wasting it's time on stupid issues such as this when there are much more important issues to deal with.

Close thread.

jag

 

[jaguarr]

Darn double posts.

jag

 

[kane9321]

its a matter of respect

 

[sinewave]

I agree it's ridiculous to waste time and tax payer's money on issues like this. The people who brought this up tried to claim that it was necessary to make a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning because it rose 33% this year. So, compared to the 3 instances of flag burning last year there were 4 this year. It's an epidemic!!!!

 

[PLAS]

It's not the matter of the amendment that disgusts me (personally I think that we should treat the flag with respect, but I don't think that the Constitution should have amendments that restrict freedoms of any kind be gay marriage, flag burning, Prohibition, etc.), it's the fact that Congress is wasting it's time on stupid issues such as this when there are much more important issues to deal with.

somebody should close this thread and keep this post in the end of it

it says all there is to say

 

[Addendum]

its a matter of respect

I respect the ideals that this nation was founded on. I respect the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Paine

That matters a helluva lot more than the flag itself

 

[Darthphere]

Excellent, good to hear.

 

[NHawk19]

It's not the matter of the amendment that disgusts me (personally I think that we should treat the flag with respect, but I don't think that the Constitution should have amendments that restrict freedoms of any kind be gay marriage, flag burning, Prohibition, etc.), it's the fact that Congress is wasting it's time on stupid issues such as this when there are much more important issues to deal with.

How can we claim to be a society that believes in free speech if we dont display the flag and support someone's rights to burn it? I find the burnings to be inappropriate personally but that doesnt mean I dont think they should have the right to protest in that manner, as long as there is no violence.

 

[Super Mark]

Wow. Smarter people on my comic book forum than on AOL News forums. Some very wise arguments here. Although maybe I'm just saying that because I agree with most of the comments!

Having a free country doesn't mean that I'M FREE, it means WE'RE FREE. So people are going to do things I don't like. If we only allow people to say what we want them to say, well, that's not freedom.

And yes, there are servicemen who believe that; I'm a U.S. Army veteran,
05D in the 703rd MI Brigade. Most vets won't agree, but when I think about it, I have to say that by protecting the flag, I'm also protecting people's right to BURN the flag. THAT'S what the flag stands for.
Mark

 

[jaguarr]

Wow. Smarter people on my comic book forum than on AOL News forums. Some very wise arguments here. Although maybe I'm just saying that because I agree with most of the comments!

Having a free country doesn't mean that I'M FREE, it means WE'RE FREE. So people are going to do things I don't like. If we only allow people to say what we want them to say, well, that's not freedom.

And yes, there are servicemen who believe that; I'm a U.S. Army veteran,
05D in the 703rd MI Brigade. Most vets won't agree, but when I think about it, I have to say that by protecting the flag, I'm also protecting people's right to BURN the flag. THAT'S what the flag stands for.
Mark

jag

 

[Addendum]

The United States Military Oath of Allegiance...

I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Note that the last line is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection)

Nothing in there about a flag.

 

[Manic]

What is this, the 1,000th time this type of thing has been rejected by the federal legislature? It doesn't matter how Liberal or Conservative the Senate and Congress are; they always reject bills to ban flag burning. Whoever keeps proposing these bills and amendments needs to leave the horse's carcass be.

 

[jaguarr]

What is this, the 1,000th time this type of thing has been rejected by the federal legislature? It doesn't matter how Liberal or Conservative the Senate and Congress are; they always reject bills to ban flag burning. Whoever keeps proposing these bills and amendments needs to leave the horse's carcass be.

It's just diversionary crap. A perennial favorite these goons in office use to make it seem like they're doing something important when in reality, they aren't. Stuff like this seems to come up during election years when they're all scrambling to get their butts re-elected rather than actually doing their jobs. It's an issue they know will never get legislated, but it makes for good emotional diversions for the public.

On another note, and Super Mark might be able to help here, aren't soldiers in the military forbidden to question their commanders and superior officers, most notably the President?

jag

 

[Man-Thing]

What the hell? That is not a silly comment. It is true. The Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government so that it would not become "tyranical" like the British.

Other laws are what helps other people from violating other people's rights. The Constitution gives the government the right to arrest people for murder because it is the murderer violated the person's who was killed right to life. The Constitution gives the government the power to protect our rights not only from the government itself, but from individuals as well.

Allthough I agree with your assestment that the constitution is there to limit the power of the federal government (if that weren't the case- then there shouldn't be a constitutuion to be begin with). However, there are many other reason for the constitution as shown in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

everything that is highlighted, would take a federal government to see it through. Just like I said, one of the purposes is of course to limit the power of the federal government: but not the only reason.