Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

Yahoo News:


House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
16 minutes ago



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'm a constitutional conservative. I believe that the Constitution is for laying out the rules for how we govern ourselves. We'll have 3 branches of government, these people can vote, the government can/can't do this or that, etc.

It is not supposed to be a collection of rules for personal behavior. We tried that with Prohibition. Lousy amendment. Lousy idea. Even though this amendment is worded in a way that gives Congress the power to do something, it amounts to the same thing.

I don't want the Constitution decorated like a Christmas tree with amendments like this one. If they start doing this kind of thing, we'll soon have an 800 page constitution like the EU. Silly.

[sonofthedarkstranger]

It's pretty simple: if you support this amendment, you don't really support free speech. Spare the flag, torch the First Amendment.

The flag is 2 things: a piece of cloth, and a symbol. To amend the constitution to protect a piece of cloth and a symbol is idiocy. The flag may represent America; the flag is NOT America. Burning the flag is not an attack on America. It is a gesture. It may hurt some feelings, but it is harmless.

If America can be hurt in a real, tangible way by flag burning (and I don't believe it can be), then our ship is truly sinking.

[mithridates]

Um...
I agree with the two posters above.

[gypsyfish]

I'd have to be mighty pissed to burn the flag and I think that it's more serious than causing 'hurt feelings', but it is freedom of expression and should be allowed.

[wannago]

Then I'm assuming that you all disagree with any hate-speech legislation. If you can burn the flag, shouldn't you also be able to call anyone a name, racial slur, homphobic statements, etc.? Really, words don't actually hurt people. And, no, this isn't apples and oranges, it's free speech.

[mindmetoo]

Geez I mean think of how courts in future my interpret the intent. The flag becomes symbolic for all symbols of state (the President, the Republican Party...), it becomes illegal to desecrate such symbols (ie criticize)...

So we have freedom of speech but there's also an internal constitutional limit on political speech (pretty much the thing the First Amendment was meant to protect). Free speech that hurts the feelings of patriotic people is illegal...

[Kuros]

I agree with Ya-Ta, this shouldn't be an amendment.

However, I don't understand the position of people who think that what the law does is negative in itself. The license (calling it a freedom is too much) to burn the flag accomplishes what? People died for this country, and this flag is a symbol for their sacrifice and the sacrifice of many others for the sake of our collective freedom and well-being.

[scarneck]

Burn the flag, piss on the Quran, flush it down the toilet...what's the difference? Free speech right?

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Flag burning amendments reduces the value / dilutes the meaning of the constitution.


Why protect the flag if you are going to dilute the constitution?

The constitution supports the flag, not the other way around.

Such a law will probably be ruled unconstitutional anyway

[Ya-ta Boy]

[mindmetoo]

[gypsyfish]

[guangho]

[Gopher]

deleted