Posted on 06/27/2006 3:21:49 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Being racist is wrong....but that doesn't make it illegal. You seem to have the perception that just because something is wrong, there should be a law against it. I think smoking is wrong....should outlaw that? Feeling something that is wrong should be outlawed sounds a lot more like a liberal to me.
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.
I see the same thing as well as a nation of laws and a people that could inspire their sacrifice.
Let's make sure we understand ourselves. The constitution/bill of rights allows for such expression.
Most people would never dream of burning the American flag out of great respect for our fallen heroes. But our fallen heroes faught fiercly to keep us... free.
It's almost an oxymoron to say you are not free to burn the symbol of freedom.
Such important things to do before election day...
Real nice. An average person could take that as an intended verbal threat against a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Even if you don't have any argument for your silly little Amendment besides what you 'feel', you shouldn't resort to such statements.
More please...
I've actually given this stuff some thought. Really want your opinion. Seriously.
Flag burning is WRONG.
I agree. But passing a contitutional amendment to ban flag burning is an even greater wrong.
Giving somebody the finger is an ACT, but it says something too.
Personally, I oppose an amendment banning flag burning. I think a law that says anyone assaulting anyone burning a flag cannot be prosecuted for assault would work for me.
If burning a flag is speech, then that "speech" is "Fighting Words", and deserves an appropriate response: A couple of left jabs, two rights to the face, an uppercut to the jaw, and a size 12 to the groin would do it.
How many of these left-wing scumbags have the guts to take a beating for their despicable acts? None. Flag burnings would practically disappear from public discourse.
Let's make sure we understand ourselves. The constitution/bill of rights allows for such expression
I believe so. But I could be wrong...
Exactly how does a symbol allow anything? Does the government provide rights or did such rights exist without government?
Let the flag burners show themselves by their very act of desecretion - we will know them for what and who they are and shun them accordingly.
The flag cannot be dishonored by an ignorant few.
Odd how it USED to be illegal.
Odd how having consequences for wrong behavior is not "liberal" according to you.
LOL!!!
Yeah and it used to be legal to segregate bathrooms...your point?
Nor should we need a Constitutional Amendment for English being our official language and singing it in ENGLISH!
Exactly how does a symbol allow anything? Does the government provide rights or did such rights exist without government?
Okay, wrong phrasing. Apologies. How about: A symbol that stands for the expression....
Symbols are basically visual shorthand.
Could it not be defined as an act rather than as a form of expression and therefore not protected as an 'expression', but prosecutable as an 'act'?
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.