Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate blocks flag-burn ban
Herald Sun ^ | 28 June 2006

Posted on 06/27/2006 5:12:13 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher

THE Republican majority in the US Senate has failed by just one vote to amend the constitution to ban desecration of the national flag.

The motion was backed by 66 votes, one short of the two thirds majority need to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Thirty-four senators voted against.

The measure, backed by President George W. Bush, had been promoted by the Republican majority as it tries to rally its conservative base ahead of key congressional elections in November.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; burnbabyburn; commonsenseprevails; congress; failed; failedpandering; flagburning; freespeechlives; gop; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: Aussie Dasher

So if they put little American flag symbols on cigarettes, can I smoke it in a bar?


41 posted on 06/27/2006 7:43:28 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregH
Liberal loonies and Al queeda would thank the Dems and other libertarians for voting against the flag burning amendment.

umm..no. The only countries that outlaw burning or desecrating their national flag are China, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq.

So if it had passed, America would be in some great company there. (/sarc)

42 posted on 06/27/2006 7:52:10 PM PDT by Deadshot Drifter (Lib Wackos have the Center for Science in the Public Interest. CRIDers have the Discovery Institute)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Deadshot Drifter

'umm..no. The only countries that outlaw burning or desecrating their national flag are China, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq.'

Any proof for these claims? I really doubt any nation apart from the morally depraved would classify flag burning as free speech.

As for being in great company, look at the kind of people that support Flag burning as a free speech right Hillary, Ted Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, Michael moore.. almost all the loony libs at DU etc.. some great bunch of crowd the amendment opposers attract there. (/s)


43 posted on 06/27/2006 9:16:21 PM PDT by GregH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Deadshot Drifter
The only countries that outlaw burning or desecrating their national flag are China, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq.

That list is not correct. I suspect that you would be in a world of hurt if you were to burn the North Korean flag in the main square in Pyongyang. Likewise try burning the Saudi Arabian flag (the one with "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet" written on it) in downtown Mecca by the Grand Mosque.

44 posted on 06/27/2006 9:20:00 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LasVegasMac
Burning the symbol of this nation, and what it stands for, is not free speech.

How does desecrating a US flag burn what this nation stands for?
45 posted on 06/27/2006 9:54:20 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo
Running down a neighborhood street naked yelling foul things at all the houses you pass is an expression and is against the law.

Disturbing the peace is an action that negatively impacts others in their private residences. This is not analagous to flag desecration.

Using Road-Rage against someone that cut you off on the freeway is an expression and is against the law.

Physically endangering the life of another is not analagous to flag desecration.

Burning a cross in front of someone’s home is an expression and is against the law

Trespass, arson and possible endangerment of others is not comparable to flag desecration.
46 posted on 06/27/2006 9:57:16 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

To burn the American flag is to burn the freedom of speech.

If it didn't pass this time- GOP congress, election year, right before the 4th of July -it's never going to pass. What a shame.


47 posted on 06/27/2006 10:25:35 PM PDT by Right-Wing Champion (God Bless the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Right-Wing Champion
To burn the American flag is to burn the freedom of speech.

It's a testament to our freedom that we allow unpopular expressions.

If it didn't pass this time- GOP congress, election year, right before the 4th of July -it's never going to pass.

Correct, and nor should it. It would protect a symbol at the cost of cheapening what the symbol stands for.

48 posted on 06/27/2006 10:39:21 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

Lighting a fire is not free speech.


49 posted on 06/27/2006 11:24:12 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
I dont like flag burning either. But I dislike governments that limit our rights even more.

Where is lighting a fire mentioned in the Constitution?

50 posted on 06/27/2006 11:28:13 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
It's a testament to our freedom that we allow unpopular expressions.

Arson is not popular...

51 posted on 06/27/2006 11:30:10 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

A reminder to all. The Senate has a finely crafted ability to defeat stuff like this with the least possible political damage to its Club members.

Some Senators, those who are closest to reelection, are given free passes to vote 'yea'. Others, whose reelections are far off, vote no in the knowledge that the voters have very short memories, if they ever find out the truth in the first place.

It's the way things are done.

Bottom line? The Senate wanted this Amendment dead, and it is now dead.


52 posted on 06/27/2006 11:34:16 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
It's a testament to our freedom that we allow unpopular expressions.

Bah.

By holding to the principle that enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens, we can still guarantee freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions, and demonstrations without ever having to see our flag desecrated.

Tee hee!

53 posted on 06/27/2006 11:41:06 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: abercrombie_guy_38

You lose the bet.


54 posted on 06/28/2006 2:38:50 AM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a creditcard?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

3/4 of the state legislatures


55 posted on 06/28/2006 5:42:16 AM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"Bottom line? The Senate wanted this Amendment dead, and it is now dead."

Exactly, it was grandstanding pure and simple. Those here saying "but it was so close this time" need to realize the vote was politically calculated to come out as it did. These votes are unofficially counted before the roll is taken. The Senate negotiates how they want the votes to break for maximum political capitol for each senator. Otherwise you'd have seen arm twisting and pressure from both the President and Vice President. As you stated no one wanted this to go to the States. They knew it would be a lengthy expensive campaigned that even if successful wouldn't result in enforcement. It is already against federal code to improperly display the flag or put it on t-shirts but you don't see Senators going after the GAP or Wal-mart.

56 posted on 06/28/2006 5:49:40 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Where is lighting a fire mentioned in the Constitution?

Where is speaking on the radio mentioned in the Constitution? Are you really comfortable with the government telling you in what manner you are permitted to speak out against it?

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

None. Zero. Zilch.

57 posted on 06/28/2006 5:50:38 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (Man Law: You Poke It, You Own It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

Ditto!


58 posted on 06/28/2006 5:55:23 AM PDT by FrankR (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

Lighting a fire is not speech... talking on the radio is...


59 posted on 06/28/2006 5:58:57 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: LasVegasMac
"Burning the symbol of this nation, and what it stands for, is not free speech."

I understand the gut feeling LasVegasMac and other Freepers, however think this through a little further.

Every time I see some maggot, drug crazed, liberal pig, light the flag in protesting this awful country (in their minds), I start to laugh. These stupid mistakes of sperm and eggs don't even realize that in only a handful of great countries is this form of stupid expression allowed. They are proving by their stupid actions what a great country this is and they don't even realize it.

Unfortunately, with the GOP & Conservatives being the party of patriotism they feel the need to show just how patriotic they are by banning flag burning when in fact such a law LIMITS FREE POLITICAL SPEACH.

Lets leave the limiting of rights to the bastards on the left. They are better at it.

60 posted on 06/28/2006 5:59:28 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (The difference between democrats and terrorists is the terrorists don't claim to support the troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson