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.
Well put inkling... Just wish that SOTUS would get it right on campaign finance also!
Flag burning has already been declared to be First Amendment-protected speech.
Just declare flag-burner burning to have the same "Freedom of Expression" protection.
Yeah, everything else is fine as we whistle past the graveyard, so why not waste time and taxpayer money on crap like this?
That's simple. Justice Kennedy would cite international law. :-)
Actually, I'm not sure how they would handle it technically, but two parts of the Constitution would be in direct conflict with each other. It would create a legal version of a mobius strip. A better name for this amendment could be "The Lawyer Full Employment Act" since Con Law folks would make a mint off of it.
Flag burners... well that's reall easy, I just wrap my flag around their head and then exercise my "rights" and my "lefts" until the flag has fallen to the ground. According to proper flag etiquette it should then be burned. I would do so immediately.
Given any trial, testimony would have to support the fact I was striking out at an emblem with first amendment rights. O.K., they might fine me for my lefts.... but I'll take my chances.
On the other hand if Rats feel the need to burn the flag I hope it gets a lot of coverage..should help convey their true character.
Yeah, this sets a dangerous precedent. Someone will say that carrying a concealed weapon is an action that symbolizes hatred of America (if you love America, why carry a gun?) and will ban that action. (okay, it's a bit of a strawman ... I don't think it'll actually happen that way.)
Burn away, liberal wackos.. Taiwan will make more of them.
Yes, those who are against flag burning hate capitalism!
Yes, once it's an Amendment it becomes part of the Constitution, thus, Constitutional.
But, it's not an Amendment YET. So the argument is around whether or not it should become an amendment.
Ghads I'm getting lost in all the twisted logic that lawyers come up with.
I'm still curious how lawyerly this amendment will turn out! I'm expoecting plenty of pages of definitions, exceptions, etc.
How about American flag burning permits? Make them buy a costly city permit to express their “freedom of speech”. Of course there would also be a expensive fine to burn an American flag with out a permit… just a thought.
I believe an amendment can OVERRIDE previous bits of the Constitution so that those no longer apply (3/5 rule, Prohibition) so I don't think THAT would be the problem. Althrough I'm sure lawyers would argue it.
Angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin BUMP!
BUMP to that. Ban free speech--terrorists use it!
No, that's why it is called and amendment - it changes the Constitution. Free Speech doesn't apply to flag burning essentially.
Ah, a revenue scheme. That could probably get some local pols on board.
Well, I agree it is a waste of time, but calling a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional is assinine on that author's part. It would indeed be constitutional if it is part of the Constitution.
I feel the same way.
"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".
The flag is a precious symbol. If we are going to define hate crimes then defiling the flag certainly qualifies.
This is stupid.
No one can adequately define what a flag is and what a flag isn't.
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.