Flag amendment apparently stalls in Senate [Democrats put forth an alternate - Durbin]

Yahoo ^

[Sub-Driver]

Flag amendment apparently stalls in Senate

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 11 minutes ago

A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration went to a vote in the Senate Tuesday, apparently heading for an outcome just short of the two-thirds needed to send it on to the states for ratification.

Republicans scheduled the vote exactly one week before Independence Day and a little more than four months before voters go to the polls to elect a new Congress.

Democrats put forth an alternate that also was getting a vote. Sponsored by their party's assistant leader in the Senate, Dick Durbin of Illinois, it included much of the proposed amendment's language and would make it against the law to damage an American flag on federal land if the intent was a breach of the peace or intimidation of other people. It also would prohibit unapproved demonstrations at military funerals.

The proposed constitutional amendment fell four votes short of the 67, or two-thirds majority needed, the last time the Senate voted on it, in 2000.

[nmh]

Rape and flag burning are both acts. One is an inanimate object and the other is not. For the purpose I wanted, despite this flag, I made my point.

It's all about RESPECT. Either you have it for the flag or you don't and disrespect others that gave their lives for that symbol that represents the U.S.. I know it's asking allot ... but on behalf of those who died for that flag that represents the U.S. and those serving who have pride in it - that SYMBOL needs to be left alone.

[Dimensio]

He's all for flag burning.

I am not "all for" flag burning. Your statement about me is false.

It's an act, like rape that shows disrespect - to either a man or female - who ever is the victim. by his "logic" this should be allowed to. After all it's just being disrespectful.

Incorrect. Rape is not outlawed because it shows "disrespect". Rape is outlawed because the act causes harm upon a victim. Your analogy is faulty.

People need to ARTICUALTE their disagreements not DISRESPECT OTHERS through flag burning.

The issues is not about how others "need" to express discontent and disagreement. The issue is over whether flag burning causes demonstratable harm to others.

THAT flag is VERY special.

This does not justify governmental action declaring the flag a sacred object and enacting criminal penalties for its "desecration".

Ask anyone with stones that served in the military ... they'd take Dimensio's head off for such reckless talk.

Whlie this may be true of some veterans, that does not justify government prohibition of the act of "flag desecration".

That kind of talk speaks volumes about how HE respects others - he DOESN'T.

This is a non-sequitur.

Low down tactics and sneakiness are his game - so defending flag burning isn't a surprise - par for the course.

Your personal attacks against me do not demonstrate that your position is logical, rational or valid.

[billbears]

In 1776, or in 1789, do you think our Founding Fathers would have opposed flag burning?

Do you think they would have us saying pledges to pieces of cloth and vote for a law to establish a singsong to the flag in 1931? Of course not.

Of course 65 political hacks with nothing better to do (like cut government) decided to get their nationalist vote in so they'll look good to the 'faithful' back home.

[nmh]

"Also, does anyone believe that passing a law against flag burning will stop someone who is so boiling over with hate for this country that they'd think twice about burning a flag?"

No however let their be a consequence for such EXTREME disrespect. There are consequences for other acts of "hate" and I see no reason for this one to be ignored or allowed.

[Dimensio]

It's all about respect Dimensio, however I can see that is over your head.

I understand the concept of "respect". I do not believe that "respect" alone is justification for declaring an action criminal. In fact, I find attempts to outlaw "disrespect" most commonly enacted by governments that do not deserve respect, as such prohibitions are the only means that the government has to prevent well-deserved dissent.

[Diverdogz]

According to the United State Flag Code 36s 176(k): "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."

[durasell]

No however let their be a consequence for such EXTREME disrespect. There are consequences for other acts of "hate" and I see no reason for this one to be ignored or allowed



What if cops simply arrested the flag burners on charges of creating a public hazard or some such?

[nmh]

Dimensio, I'm just describing your personal track record.

Twisting answers in your evolution threads and taking replies OUTOF CONTEXT from over TWO YEARS AGO and posting them as CURRENT. Now, that's a very TWISTED person. Anyone interested can do a search on your ID and get disgusted as well.

So defending flag burning or looking for reasons to aid flag burners doesn't surprise me. You'll take either route but the right one.

[tflabo]

Flag burning should be illegal but why do we need a Constitutional Amendment for it?
Protecting traditional marriage is far greater in importance with an Amendment but our wimp no guts pols seem to avoid it like the plague.

[Piedra79]

Again...your perception on rape is mind numbing to say the least. If you can't see that, then I can't do much for you in that area.

As far as respect to the flag goes, how about this, what's more important the symbol or the idea? In your mind the symbol has a greater importance than the ideal. I would argue that if we truly value our freedom of expression then we would not make illegal the act of destroying our symbol in a manner of protest. What good is dying for freedom if we have none?

[nmh]

"What if cops simply arrested the flag burners on charges of creating a public hazard or some such?"

I see respect for those who died and those who serve in our military isn't a priority for you ... just shaking my head in disgust.

[Dimensio]

Twisting answers in your evolution threads and taking replies OUTOF CONTEXT from over TWO YEARS AGO and posting them as CURRENT.

Please reference a posting where I did this.

So defending flag burning or looking for reasons to aid flag burners doesn't surprise me.

Please explain how I have defended flag burning or aided flag burners. Be specific.

[billbears]

So I take it by your responses on this thread you don't support property rights, personal or private.

[Piedra79]

An amendment would be needed because previous Supreme Court cases have ruled that making laws against flag desecration is unconstitutional.

[nmh]

I'm not going to waste my time splitting hairs over this.

Flag burning is WRONG.

Have you ever thought about going over to DU?

You should. They'd LOVE your replies and hair splitting excuses to avoid doing what's right.

[the anti-liberal]

Perhaps I'm not up on my legalese, but how do they expect our courts or law enforcement to determine 'intent'?

"against the law to damage an American flag on federal land if the intent was a breach of the peace or intimidation of other people"

Seems like a recipe for disaster - enforcement will go one way or another way depending on the politics of the moment.

There's no concrete foundation here, this a pure waste of the Senate's time and money, and if passed it will be a pure waste of our court's time and money.

[durasell]

The flag burning issue is fascinating. It's like a logic problem that can't be solved.

On one side you're limiting free speech/expression in order to preserve the symbol that stands for free speech and expression.

On the other side, you're expressing yourself in an extreme manner by destroying the symbol that allows you the freedom of such extreme expression.

[Dimensio]

Flag burning is WRONG.

This statement seems unnecessary, given that no one here has yet suggested that flag burning is not "wrong". It would appear that you are either making a statement against a position that no one has taken, or you are attempting to imply that others have taken positions that they have not.

[tflabo]

Since the Supremes don't mind burning patriotic flag cloth can we just ignite their black robes instead?

[the anti-liberal]

our court's s/b our courts'...