Posted on 06/22/2005 7:37:47 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
WASHINGTON - A constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning cleared the House Wednesday but faced an uphill battle in the Senate. An informal survey by The Associated Press suggested the measure doesn't have enough Senate votes to pass.
The 286-130 outcome was never in doubt in the House, which had passed the measure or one like it five times in recent years. The amendment's supporters expressed optimism that a Republican gain of four seats in last November's election could produce the two-thirds approval needed in the Senate as well after four failed attempts since 1989.
But an AP survey Wednesday found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment — one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote, barring a change in position.
Late Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., a possible presidential candidate in 2008, revealed that she would vote against the measure. "As I have said in the past, I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said in a statement.
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., remained undecided, a spokesman said.
The House debate fell along familiar lines over whether the amendment strengthened the Constitution or ran afoul of its free-speech protections.
Supporters said there was more public support than ever because of emotions following the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They said detractors are out of touch with public sentiment.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."
Critics accused the amendment's supporters of exploiting the attacks to trample the right to free speech.
"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." said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center.
Since 1789, there have been more than 11,000 attempts in Congress to amend the Constitution; only 27 amendments have won ratification. The last, in 1992, prevents Congress from passing a law giving itself a pay raise before the next election. The 26th Amendment, in 1971, extended the right to vote to citizens as young as 18.
One of the most recent amendments that received congressional approval but failed to gain ratification by states was the Equal Rights Amendment. It would have set into law equality between men and women. The period for states to ratify it expired in 1982.
The last time the Senate voted on the flag-burning amendment, the tally was 63 in favor and 37 against, four votes short of the two-thirds majority needed.
Now, with more than two dozen new members, a four-seat Republican gain in the last election and a public still stung by the terrorist attacks in 2001, activists on both sides say the Senate could be within a vote or two of passage.
But the amendment's prospects faded late Wednesday when Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Mark Pryor of Arkansas revealed that they would oppose it.
Possible presidential contenders who have supported the amendment in the past include Evan Bayh, D-Ind., Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and John McCain, R-Ariz.
Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., a likely presidential candidate, has said he would oppose the amendment.
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 by two-thirds of those present in each chamber, then ratified within seven years by at least 38 state legislatures.
The amendment is designed to overturn a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in 1989 that flag burning is a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute as well as flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam War protesters setting fire to American flags at demonstrations.
The Senate could consider the measure as soon as next month.
___
Associated Press Writer Jim Abrams contributed to this report.
___
The amendments are S.J. Res 12 and H.J. Res 10.
Stupid. Let them burn the flag in public for all to see.
No, that burns me up. People need to respect the flag. Too many people have fought under it, our troops wear it on their sleeves for goodness sake. It's to be respected.
I'm against most any First Amendment restrictions, they only make it harder to detect the anti-American $#!+heads.
This thread has already been posted...some 376 replies to the last one.
Many, pardon the pun, show their true colors.
I think the SCOTUS got it right. Flag burning is a protected form of speech. But I also feel that it should be legal for anyone who feels up to it, to whack anyone seen doing it. That is true "equal rights".
Brings back memories of the 60's when protestors burned flags, draft cards, and bras.
If burning the flag is free speech, so is my kicking the crap out of anyone who is doing it. Hey, I'm just expressing my views. What about my rights?
See #6 post!
That is the understatement of the year -- was shocked at some of the comments I read on that thread. Still trying to figure out where commenting homeless, hungry, etc. people came from on that thread about flag burning. Didn't know we had so many people that believe it is okay to burn the flag because it is their "right."
Very good point and one I agree with totally!
No, that would be assault and battery.
The only way to write a law or an amendment or a regulation to cover every possible desecration or folkway violation regarding the flag is to write one that makes the European constitution look like an abbreviation.
The last refuge of scoundrels. So can you pick out the scoundrels finding safe harbor amongst those who genuinely respect the flag?
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 25, 2005
Mr. CUNNINGHAM (for himself, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BASS, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. BUYER, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. GOODE, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. ISSA, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. PITTS, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. WAMP, Mr. WICKER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. HUNTER, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. WOLF, Mr. OTTER, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. TERRY, and Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire) introduced the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
June 14, 2005
Additional sponsors: Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. FORBES, Mrs. KELLY, Mrs. NORTHUP, Mr. BAKER, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. RAHALL, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. HAYES, Mr. LINDER, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. HYDE, Mr. MURPHY, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. PORTER, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. NEY, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. KING of New York, Ms. HERSETH, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mr. REHBERG, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. GORDON, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. SODREL, Mr. REYES, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. PENCE, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. RENZI, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. CARTER, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. CANNON, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. KLINE, Mr. COBLE, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. BOREN, Mr. SHERWOOD, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. OSBORNE, Mr. HERGER, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. JINDAL, Mr. ROSS, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. BACA, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Ms. HART, Mr. BOYD, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. CHOCOLA, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. MCCRERY, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mrs. BONO, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. COLE of Oklahoma, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. BERRY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. WELLER, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. MANZULLO, and Mr. HOBSON
Thanks for filling me in there.
First, not only is such an amendment unconstitutional (as the document stands now), but it's completely impossible to enforce and would serve as nothing more than feel-good, pseudo-patriotic nonsense. The triumph of emotion over logic.
Second, what would count as a flag? Does it have to be cloth, or would large pictures drawn in crayon be covered? Do poster-sized glossy pictures of flags count? Could I be jailed for burning a tie or shirt with a big flag on it? What about those little flags on toothpicks that are in some desserts and drink; I guess it's 30 days for igniting a stack of those. What if the particular flag I am burning only has 12 stripes and 49 stars....is it official?
And why only flags? Shouldn't we also protect other symbols of America? The Statue of Liberty, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence. I'll still be free to burn those, even though the sentiment is the same as burning a flag.
And you have no problem with such a law. Do me a favor. Take a stab at writing this law so that it isn't completely ridiculous.
Let me add a few comments. Kid Rock's flag poncho at the Super Bowl -- would he be arrested in the future? People wearing American flag shirts that have holes in them from use -- toss them in jail? This is a feel-good law that is unenforcable and will immediately (and rightfully) be struck down by the SCOTUS. With all the stuff the GOP needs to focus on right now, this is a rabbit trail we can't afford to waste time on.
This is an idiotic waste of time. Dean panders to blacks via the Ohio poll claim and now Republicans pander to conservatives with this crap. They treat us like we're stupid fools out here. Hello? Is anyone in Congress doing a friggin thing except allowing dem filibusters and saluting the flag. Like we have some flag burning crisis that has to be urgently dealt with? Gimme a break. The fact we are strong enough to allow this non-event to theoretically take place is one characteristic that used to make this a great nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.