Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment
WASHINGTON (AP) - 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, 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.
_The amendment is H.J. Res 10.
I know that there will be screeching about this....the likes that haven't been heard since President Bush was re-elected last fall.
For those that think this is a bad thing, consider this: after this is approved (probably) in both houses, it will pass to the states for ratification; this means that the people will ratify it - probably through local elections. This cannot be considered a 'power grab' by any stretch of the imagination since every voter in the nation will voice in on it.
Here's hoping that it passes.
SIDENOTE
When I looked up the Constitution to see what this amendment would be numbered as, I found this:
Amendment XXVIII didn't even know that this amendment was ratified.No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Huh....shows you how up-to-speed I am on the Constitution....
Someone burning a flag has been failed by the political process.
Or is ignorant o
Read more in Amendment XXVIII?
royston said:
Someone burning a flag has been failed by the political process. People without a voice will go t
Read more in Amendment XXVIII?
Yogimus said:
With the stroke of the pen, congress will be able to do more damage to our nation's symbol than a
Read more in Amendment XXVIII?
scroff said:
While I would tend to agree with you Mad One, and wouldn't burn a flag myself, I see no reason to
Read more in Amendment XXVIII?
Mad Mikey said:
People burn flags to express indignation at institutions.
IMO, people burn flags (
Read more in Amendment XXVIII?
ruthie said:
This amendment is ridiculous. (I know you know where i'm going with this, MIKEY..lol)
Read more in Amendment XXVIII?
Comments on Amendment XXVIII?
Unbelievable! The Nazis wouldn't let you piss on a flag either. Nice precedent.
|| Posted by royston, June 22, 2005 02:51 PM ||Congress really has IMPORTANT things to discuss. This shameful timewasting only serves to hi-light how moribund the current administration is. They're not even capable of looking backwards, which is a shame because then they might notice history repeating itself.
This shameful timewasting only serves to hi-light how moribund the current administration is.
I am with you on most, but this sentence is a bit off. I think this is an INSANELY stupid idea. Look at what congress had done with the commerce clause... Imagine the misuse THIS could have. I blame the assholes in the congress and senate for this, and many of them will still be there LONG after bush is a distant memory.
Unless of course you want to blame bush for everything, and never get to actually holding the parties responsible. In which case, go nuts.
(My car stalled.. fucking bush)
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 22, 2005 07:34 PM ||Royston: since you're trucking in from the UK I felt it necessary to state that what you think is of no importance....
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 23, 2005 04:22 PM ||Republicans have EARS! and EYES! and NOSES!
JUST LIKE THE FUCKING NAZIS!
Get a grip, Roy.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, June 24, 2005 05:18 AM ||People burn flags to express indignation at institutions. If you ban it they will simply find another way to express their anger. It solves nothing and is therefore pointless, a waste of time and, ergo, not important.
|| Posted by Royston, June 24, 2005 05:52 PM ||This amendment is ridiculous. (I know you know where i'm going with this, MIKEY..lol)
|| Posted by ruthie, June 24, 2005 07:13 PM ||People burn flags to express indignation at institutions.
IMO, people burn flags (and people in effigy) because they're twits and cannot convey their argument(s) in a logical manner.
It's like a kid throwing a temper tantrum and throwing stuff - they're immature and cannot say what they want or they're frustrated that their argument is flawed.
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 25, 2005 10:27 AM ||While I would tend to agree with you Mad One, and wouldn't burn a flag myself, I see no reason to have to have a law against it. I guess they'll have to start burning bibles. Now that I would do, piles and piles of them ;)
|| Posted by scroff, June 25, 2005 07:41 PM ||With the stroke of the pen, congress will be able to do more damage to our nation's symbol than a thousand twits with lighters. They will destroy what the flag symbolizes.
On a sidenote: Aren't there already laws on teh books that state you can't burn shit without a permit?
And how do they plan on disposing old flags? The proper way to do so is to BURN the flag.
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 26, 2005 08:39 PM ||Someone burning a flag has been failed by the political process. People without a voice will go to great lengths to be heard. If it is made illegal people will suffer jail for it and will
|| Posted by royston, June 28, 2005 06:51 PM ||welcome the extra attention this brings.
Someone burning a flag has been failed by the political process.
Or is ignorant of it, inept at it, or doesn't get his way.
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 28, 2005 08:01 PM ||