Flag Desecration Amendment Fails Again

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:04 am

Good! Our Constitution should be about increasing our freedoms and limiting gov't, not the other way around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senate Rejects Flag Desecration Bill by One Vote

USA TODAY

Andrea Stone June 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Senate fell one vote short Tuesday of passing a constitutional amendment that would have allowed Congress to ban desecration of the U.S. flag.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and other supporters vowed to try again next year, after a new Congress is elected in November. Since 1990, the measure has failed five times in the Senate to get the two-thirds vote needed to move to the states for ratification. The House of Representatives has approved the amendment seven times, most recently last year.

Hatch says the measure is needed to protect a symbol of freedom and counteract U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1989 and 1990 that struck down state and federal laws. He cites polls showing public support and non-binding resolutions by 50 state legislatures endorsing the amendment.

"This is a setback, but it's not a final defeat," he said. "For protecting the Stars and Stripes, I will not give up."

Opponents said the measure would have curtailed First Amendment rights on speech for the first time since the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791.

"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, "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 non-violent speech."

The amendment reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." According to the pro-amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there were four cases of flag desecration in 2006.

The vote came a week before Independence Day and about five months before the fall elections, prompting both sides to charge the other with playing election-year politics. It was the second time this month the Senate failed to pass a constitutional amendment. The other was a ban on gay marriage.

"The Constitution has survived yet another round of election-year politicking," said Terri Ann Schroeder of the ACLU, which opposed the flag amendment.

Still, supporters were encouraged. In 2000, the Senate came up four votes short.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:12 am

It is infuriating to see the waste of time and resources that go into this bullshit while this country has some real issues that need to be addressed.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:58 am

flopstock wrote: IMO the ultimate act of disrespect towards our flag is the use of it by politicians to purchase votes.
Standing Ovation for Floppy!!!

Well said.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:24 am

Check this link

http://www.eakles.com/95julyfourthpg.htm

It is a birthday greeting to America, but goes with the theme of this thread...sort of.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:30 am

flopstock wrote: IMO the ultimate act of disrespect towards our flag is the use of it by politicians to purchase votes.

SO TRUE!

There's even a comic about the Amendment in today's Doonsbury.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:03 pm

I'm not quite as cynical as some of you but I am glad the Amendment failed. Our constitution should not be toyed with. I love our flag and despise the abuse it is sometimes subjected to, but the constitution is the wrong vehicle with which to address the issue.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:24 pm

'Zapple...are you referring to "cynicism" toward members of Congress, who dig up this issue to deflect our attention from other matters? You know, I read two papers every day and see CNN and I'll be darned if I've seen a rash of flag burnings in the last few months.

So...why now?

I'll be REALLY cynical and say that, underneath all this, it's just possible that they're testing the waters toward the idea of even MORE Constitutional tinkering. And all to foster a certain agenda....

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:05 pm

:yh_think She's got a point.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:16 pm

Thank you.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:24 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Thank you.My honor. I think you & I are going to get along great. :-6

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:32 pm

I'm a passionate civil libertarian. My father died in military service...and I think he died for my right to burn that flag if I want to do it.

Can you imagine what would happen if that ridiculous thing actually PASSED? Think about it...no more red/white/blue decorations or clothing or little plastic lapel pins on Memorial Day. There'd probably be a bureau created to decide what's a "real" flag and what's not.

The FLAG POLICE would be watching when I decided to replace my worn-out flag, to make sure I don't burn it in protest but burn it according to handling protocols. I could report my neighbors for DESECRATING THE FLAG and they'd come under suspicion. The FLAG POLICE might be watching to make sure I take it down at night and fold it in a proper manner. Don't let it touch the ground!

And then...what's next? No burning copies of the Constitution?

It's an absurdity....and it's a smoke screen. What's REALLY behind this?

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:43 pm

LuLu what boogey man are looking for this time? Some people are passionate in their patriotism and love of our national symbols. Sometimes this passion leads them in unwise directions. There doesn't have to be another agenda behind it. You are correct. There is no rash of flag burnings. It isn't a crucial issue. It doesn't require nor should there be a constitutional amendment to address the issue. And yes, there is an element of politics involved. I mean, my goodness, when does Congress ever do anything that doesn't involve politics. I am opposed to this amendment, glad it failed, but I don't think those who supported the protection of our flag are lowlifes, worthless bastards, or agenda-driven machiavellians, I just think they are wrong.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:50 pm

"lowlifes, worthless bastards, or agenda-driven machiavellians,"

Well, neither do I. "Lowlife, worthless bastard" isn't anything I've said, Zapple. All I said is...I'll bet you money there's another agenda and that it begins with opening that door via this amendment.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:52 pm

Ok.

The Flag Desecration Amendment is right there with last month's English as the National Language and the Gay Marriage issue.

It isn't like anyone in Congress actually cares if any of this stuff passed. It is all about making the "moral majority" or "religious right" think that they care. It is afterall, coming up to election time for some of these guys and we all know that G.W.'s coat tail just isn't going to do anyone any good this time around.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:50 am

Flag Burning

Minimum Wage

Illegal Immigration

Global Warming

Abortion

Politicians drag out these and other issues around election time to make the electorate think they are actually getting things accomplished in Washington. They're all important to some vocal minority who are only too happy to help out, wittingly or not, making easy headlines for the reporters too lazy to dig and find the real story - like what are all these laws that are getting passed while Congress complains about gridlock. :yh_frustr

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:56 am

And, Accountable....don't forget same-sex marriage! That's ALMOST as severe a threat as that overwhelming wave of flag-burnings! :rolleyes: