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.

[Sub-Driver]

be nice to see the vote tally......

[KC Burke]

But, the Durbin amendment had that provision that if you used a flag as toilet paper after discrediting heroic efforts in the middle east and were a leftist, you could burn them by the dozen.

[MikeA]

What's the Democratic alternative? A constitutional amendment making flag burning mandatory?

[nmh]

"But, the Durbin amendment had that provision that if you used a flag as toilet paper after discrediting heroic efforts in the middle east and were a leftist, you could burn them by the dozen."

Exactly.

It defeats the purpose of the original amendment -

NO FLAG BURNING!

Burning a flag totally disrespects those who DIED for it. It's a symbol that gave them hope and pride.

If you can't ARTICULATE your disagreement - burning a flag won't do it. Burning a flag is NOT SPEECH. It is a despicable ACT.

[Dimensio]

Burning a flag totally disrespects those who DIED for it.

Disrespect is despiciable, but I do not see just cause in outlawing such a show of disrespect just to outlaw disrespect. Such acts only draw further undeserved attention to the flag burners.

[newzjunkey]

It also would prohibit unapproved demonstrations at military funerals.

Sounds like a "Fred Phelps" ammendment to me!

[nmh]

"Disrespect is despiciable, but I do not see just cause in outlawing such a show of disrespect just to outlaw disrespect. Such acts only draw further undeserved attention to the flag burners."

I'm not surprised from other encounters on FR that you would have no issue with flag burning. By your logic, rape should be allowed. That disrespects a female. Yes futher attention would be drawn to rapists ... sigh. Why not just beocme a godless Demoncrat and be done with it ... .

[Publius Valerius]

It's not speech? It doesn't send a message? Sounds like it conveys a message, especially since you're getting so fired up over the message that it sends.

Sorry that you don't like the content of the message, but deal. Being a grown-up means dealing with things you don't like.

[rebelyell7]

yawn. wake me up when congress starts dealing with some of the real problems facing america.

[PackerBoy]

I am very conservative. I oppose the Flag Amendment because it curtails one form of free political speech, however revolting that form might be to you and me. Freedom of speech means the right to offend others through spoken words, written words and symbolic acts.

In 1776, or in 1789, do you think our Founding Fathers would have opposed flag burning? I think not!

[discostu]

Burning a flag is speech, it's stupid speech, but it's speech. And it's even political stupid speech, which is exactly what the First Ammendment is supposed to be protecting. This new ammendment is an abomination against everything this country stands for.

[ThinkDifferent]

I'm not surprised from other encounters on FR that you would have no issue with flag burning.

Which of course is not what he said. Not everything that is rude or obnoxious needs to be a crime.

By your logic, rape should be allowed.

Wow.

[Dimensio]

I'm not surprised from other encounters on FR that you would have no issue with flag burning.

That I do not believe that it is the place of government to ban such acts does not mean that I have "no issue" with such acts. You are drawing conclusions that are not logical or factual.

By your logic, rape should be allowed. That disrespects a female.

Rape inflicts demonstratable harm upon a victim. Flag burning does not. Your analogy is invalid.

Yes futher attention would be drawn to rapists ... sigh.

Penalizing rape penalizes the creation of vicims. Criminal penalties for rape serve as incentive for preventing harm to others. Criminal penalties for "flag desecration" do not.

Why not just beocme a godless Demoncrat and be done with it ... .

Why would I wish to do that?

[nmh]

YOu obvioulsy have little if any encounters with Dimensio.

He's all for flag burning.

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.

People need to ARTICUALTE their disagreements not DISRESPECT OTHERS through flag burning. THAT flag is VERY special. Ask anyone with stones that served in the military ... they'd take Dimensio's head off for such reckless talk. That kind of talk speaks volumes about how HE respects others - he DOESN'T. Low down tactics and sneakiness are his game - so defending flag burning isn't a surprise - par for the course.

[martinidon]

Agreed. I served in the Military and as much as it sickens me to see someone burning a flag it is not something that warrants an amendment to the constitution. What are we going to do next, outlaw burning effigies of Presidents.
This is just silly. I think Gay marriage is more dangerous to our country than this.

[tobyhill]

All the Senators who voted against this ban will now have to explain to their constituents about their vote while a majority wanted the ban. The RATS are traitors and unpatriotic.

[Piedra79]

Possibly one of the worst analogies I've ever seen made. Rape isn't speech it's a violent act committed against somebody else. Burning a flag is a form of speech, while it might deeply offend it is still speech. As a person whose family hails from Mexico, I wouldn't care for someone telling me that I was subhuman because of my ancestry, but he/she would have a legal right to do it. We can't just allow the tolerable speech, we have to allow the intolerable speech as well. Fred Phelps is person that comes to mind in such an argument.

[nmh]

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

Don't worry about it.

[durasell]

Let me say at the start: I'm against flag burning.


But let me also say that disrespecting a symbol is different than disrespecting a person. Symbols are not afforded the same rights as people for obvious reasons, unless an actual person becomes a symbol.

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?

[bullseye1]

Agreed...As disrespectful as it is, the flag stands for freedom - and freedom to burn the flag if you choose to. Being more concerned with the symbol, rather than what it stands for is what is wrong with this whole picture.