Wearing a Flag Ping - 28th amendment?

[Malice]

Some people want to make the 28th amendment, all politicians serving the govt, need to wear a flag pin.

LINK

This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.

 

[Matt]

Sadly enough, I could see this getting passed as there is not a politican alive who would vote against it because they'd come of as "anti-America."

 

[Darthphere]

Pass it. Then I'll introduce a 29th Amendment to get rid of the 28th Amendment.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

What the HELL.

If this passes, I'd create an amendment requiring all poltictians to wear clown suits under their pins, because that's EXACTLY what they'd be.

 

[SuBe]

Ok, for one, this would be an Amendment AGAINST freedom, and would be a step towards Fascism. Great one, who ever thought of it.

 

[Malice]

scary....scary
I like the clownsuit idea though

 

[bell110]

God people are stupid

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Some people want to make the 28th amendment, all politicians serving the govt, need to wear a flag pin.

LINK

This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.

Okay, reading the link...you do realize this is sarcasm, right?

 

[bell110]

Damn, I should have actually read the link

 

[The Senator]

They should make this a Constitutional amendment. Maybe that will let us focus on more important things during an election year, such as a candidate's record and personal character, instead of whether a candidate's decision to not wear a silly piece of metal has some hidden meaning behind it.

 

[Superman4ever]

Unconstitutional. It'll never pass, but the ignorant stupidity is beyond me. It's actually insulting, as an American, that these idiotic zealots worry more about propaganda then us Americans. This is the issue that our government needs to worry about when we're borrowing BILLIONS from China?

 

[The Senator]

Unconstitutional. It'll never pass, but the ignorant stupidity is beyond me. It's actually insulting, as an American, that these idiotic zealots worry more about propaganda then us Americans. This is the issue that our government needs to worry about when we're borrowing BILLIONS from China?

Considering it was a sarcastic editorial piece, I don't think you have to worry about anything.

 

[fifthfiend]

Unconstitutional. It'll never pass, but the ignorant stupidity is beyond me. It's actually insulting, as an American, that these idiotic zealots worry more about propaganda then us Americans. This is the issue that our government needs to worry about when we're borrowing BILLIONS from China?

It's not unconstitutional if it's a constitutional amendment, cause if it passes it's part of the constitution.

 

[Superman4ever]

Considering it was a sarcastic editorial peace, I don't think you have to worry about anything.

I know...I read the PIECE! I was commenting on your reply that they should make it an amendment. However, the commentary is correct. How much time and resources as a country have we wasted discussing crap like this? How much time has the media squandered on these phony issues?

You as a gay individual, for instance (I'm not calling you out or anything, I want to know), would you rather have the candidates discuss the topic of gay rights or have CNN give that national time to some hillbilly hee haw who's concerned about Obama not wearing the flag pin? Cause that's what happened in one of the debates...it was either CNN's or ABC's (I'm pretty sure it was CNN)...that had some old hick lady ask Obama (amid ALL of the questions CNN could have screened they chose this one) why he didn't wear a flag pin.

Seriously, this is what America has become?

 

[Superman4ever]

It's not unconstitutional if it's a constitutional amendment, cause if it passes it's part of the constitution.

Are you serious? Prohibition was constitutional?

 

[The Senator]

You as a gay individual, for instance (I'm not calling you out or anything, I want to know), would you rather have the candidates discuss the topic of gay rights or have CNN give that national time to some hillbilly hee haw who's concerned about Obama not wearing the flag pin? Cause that's what happened in one of the debates...it was either CNN's or ABC's (I'm pretty sure it was CNN)...that had some old hick lady ask Obama (amid ALL of the questions CNN could have screened they chose this one) why he didn't wear a flag pin.

First, considering neither candidate has a track record on gay rights which I approve of, it would be a waste of time if the candidates were to "debate" gay rights anyway.

Second, I agree that the flag pin debate is idiotic, and that it is a bonafide non-issue. The networks are wasting time over an itty bitty piece of metal the size of my thumb nail which most people don't pay attention to whatsoever. Just like they made an issue out of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem (contrary to what people want to believe, it was the National Anthem, not the Pledge. The National Anthem doesn't require one to put his hand over his heart).

Questions about how Obama views America are not off limits, however, but whether he wears a lapel pin or a puts his hand over his heart are totally moronic and only serves as a distraction to the issue and character concerns which should make up the bulk of this campaign.

 

[fifthfiend]

Are you serious? Prohibition was constitutional?

Yes, Prohibition was constitutional, because it was a constitutional amendment. Later they passed a constitutional amendment undoing it, so it wasn't constitutional anymore.

A constitutional amendment changes the constitution, making whatever is in the amendment part of the constitution, making it constitutional. That's the whole point of what constitutional amendments are for.

I agree with you that the flag-pin thing is stupid, and contradicts the spirit and purpose of our constitution as presently written, but that's an entirely separate thing.

 

[Superman4ever]

First, considering neither candidate has a track record on gay rights which I approve of, it would be a waste of time if the candidates were to "debate" gay rights anyway.

Second, I agree that the flag pin debate is idiotic, and that it is a bonafide non-issue. The networks are wasting time over an itty bitty piece of metal the size of my thumb nail which most people don't pay attention to whatsoever. Just like they made an issue out of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem (contrary to what people want to believe, it was the National Anthem, not the Pledge. The National Anthem doesn't require one to put his hand over his heart).

Questions about how Obama views America are not off limits, however, but whether he wears a lapel pin or a puts his hand over his heart are totally moronic and only serves as a distraction to the issue and character concerns which should make up the bulk of this campaign.

I agree that questioning Obama's views on America are OK (same with all the candidates, because ultimately is reflects on their policy). That's not an issue, like you said.

I don't think if the candidates were to talk about gay rights it would be a waste of time. Even if you don't agree with them full on what they say, at least the issue gets out there to a general audience and is talked about.

 

[The Senator]

I don't think if the candidates were to talk about gay rights it would be a waste of time. Even if you don't agree with them full on what they say, at least the issue gets out there to a general audience and is talked about.

It would get the issue out there, but would it go further than it already has in American political culture?

Neither candidate supports gay marriage. Both Democrats are trying to have it both ways on gay marriage by saying they don't support full marriage rights to gays but they are against bills which would limit their rights. That's the same position Kerry and Edwards took in 2004. Meanwhile, McCain used to think gay marriage should be left to the states, but I'm assuming that position has changed since he became the Republican nominee.

Marriage doesn't even begin to dig into the numerous other issues facing homosexuals. Both Obama and Clinton have given standard answers to concerns such as gay adoption and openly serving in the military. "We want gays to adopt"-- How? "We want gays to serve in the military"-- Does that include repealing DADT? Maybe?

Clinton has said she supports repealing DADT, Obama said he would "consider" it. Excellent. That's what Kerry said in 2004, so he could have it both ways too. Apparently, staying in the middle on issues you can't have a middle-ground stance on is the way to go. That's how you convince bigots in Missouri that you may be against the gays, while also convincing queers in San Francisco that you'll cater specifically to them. Great.

All Obama talks about is including gays in hate crimes legislation, and repealing DOMA-- which every Democratic candidate supports, including the wife of the man who passed it.

Then he has the nerve to say "we must address the HIV/ AIDS epidemic," as if that's the issue facing the gay community. He'd be right, if he were running for President twenty years ago. Now it's about marriage equality, workplace equality, and being able to live and raise a family without being crapped on by the federal government. And because Obama doesn't support marriage equality, it's quite evident that he can't be the leader the gay community has been looking for.

So while in an ideal universe, a debate on gay rights would be appreciated, there's really no reason to have one, considering every answer the politicians give will be the same crap we've heard in the past.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Unconstitutional. It'll never pass, but the ignorant stupidity is beyond me. It's actually insulting, as an American, that these idiotic zealots worry more about propaganda then us Americans. This is the issue that our government needs to worry about when we're borrowing BILLIONS from China?

If it's part of the Constitution then it isn't unconstitutional.

 

[Handsome Rob]

This amendment is about as necessary as the Federal Protection of Marriage Amendment (or whatever that thing is called).

Both amendments would allow the Federal Government to stick its nose into areas that it doesn't belong.

 

[Superman4ever]

This amendment is about as necessary as the Federal Protection of Marriage Amendment (or whatever that thing is called).

Both amendments would allow the Federal Government to stick its nose into areas that it doesn't belong.

Exactly, and even if it were passed, it'd still be unconstitutional because it infringes on the right and freedom to choose (it breaks the laws that proceed it). The whole argument that it would be constitutional if it was in the constitution, is moot. It, like prohibition, infringed on the rights and will of the people.

Remember, Article 1, Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.

An amendment forcing members of congress to wear a flag pin would violate that. Same thing with burning a flag. I don't agree with it, but NEVER should a law be passed suppressing that right. That would be un-American.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Exactly, and even if it were passed, it'd still be unconstitutional because it infringes on the right and freedom to choose (it breaks the laws that proceed it). The whole argument that it would be constitutional if it was in the constitution, is moot. It, like prohibition, infringed on the rights and will of the people.

Remember, Article 1, Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.

An amendment forcing members of congress to wear a flag pin would violate that. Same thing with burning a flag. I don't agree with it, but NEVER should a law be passed suppressing that right. That would be un-American.

Unfortunately, it would be constitutional if passed. I understand the point you're trying to make (I believe it would go against the spirit of the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders, but then I believe a lot of what goes on in gov't today violates that), but it would not be an illegal infringement; instead, it would be a legal restriction. The First Amendment is currently subject to legal restrictions: you can't threaten the life of the President, and you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater are examples of restrictions to freedom of speech administered at both the federal and the state/local level. The Flag Pin Amendment would restrict freedom of speech at the Constitutional level (by forbidding not wearing a flag pin), just as the Marriage Amendment would restrict the 10th Amendment by adding marriage to the list of powers granted to the federal government, when it was formerly granted to the states to administer.

 

[Spider-Bite]

The ONLY reason they are even talking about this, is to make Obama look bad. It has no other purpose. It's an election year gimmick.

 

[The Senator]

The ONLY reason they are even talking about this, is to make Obama look bad. It has no other purpose. It's an election year gimmick.

It's not a real amendment.