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.
A'yup!
Fire and speech... non-sequitur.
I'm just as happy that the amendment did not pass, on a number of levels, foremost being that our Constitution should not be used for legislating. But am I missing something here? I have always thought that amendments to the ratified by the states. If Congress can do it, we're in series trouble next time there's a Rat majority.
So close....
It is just a loss that should not have been up for vote anyway.
Fire and speech are not the same thing...
Point taken. Monday nite I watched a documentary on skinheads on A&E. They filmed these maggot Nazi bastards ritualistically burning an American flag. They even spit on it while it was burning calling it a Zionist flag. Later in the documentary they were shown marching with their maggot brothers in arms, the klan. I found it useful for America to see these home grown terrorists for what they are in all of their hateful glory.
Nice quip but the 1st Amendment strongly protects political speech but I gather from your one liner that things like paintings, music etc would not be protected in your world.
Flag burning is a strong, albeit, stupid political statement. Before you dismiss this form of political protest lets ban the NY Times because free speech certainly did not mean printing top secret information.
The framers of this country went to great lengths to assure we had almost unlimited rights as a free people and to limit the actions of government. Statements like "Fire and speech are not the same thing" were exactly what the framers wanted to AVOID.
People who burn flags are no better than muslim scum but in a FREE COUNTRY we have to tolerate them but we also have the right to hold them up to public ridicule and scorn (as long as we don't offend them of course).
Yes, spot on blaquebyrd. Only in a great country like ours can these scum make fools of themselves by an act which, proves beyond a doubt, that this country protects their rights of political expression. The only political speech not allowed anymore is that which offends some pin head. Notice how the left was able to make hate speech a crime without a Constitutional change?
That was why I got a B in Civics!
Thanks.
I would rather the amendment offer protection to anyone who desecrates a flag-burner. One of my co-workers came back from Vietnam with shrapnel in his body from a mine. He saw some punks waving the flag of North Vietnam, stopped his car and went after them. He literally shoved the flag into one punk's rectum. The policeman who responded did not arrest him. Would be nice to codify that.
Excellent. Now I can go to a crowded theater and shout "FIRE!!!" at the top of my lungs. If that's not free speech, what is? I FEEL like using my free will to say "fire" aloud in public, and Congress can make NO LAW to abridge that, right?
Paintings, music, etc., are not the same as fire.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Before you dismiss this form of political protest lets ban the NY Times...
No. Let's put them on trial, and if convicted by a jury of treason, hang or shoot them.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
People who burn flags are no better than muslim scum but in a FREE COUNTRY we have to tolerate them...
No "we" do not. "We" do not have to tolerate anyone....
Islam is a criminal organization. The R.I.C.O. Act should be used to seize their assets and the Imams should be deported or jailed. Lighting fires in public is arson and a threat to property and other people's safety.
Lighting a fire in public is a public safety issue... not an issue of speech...
If you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, why the hell should anyone be allowed to light one???
The Senate allowed some to continue a risky lifestyle. So be it. Many died and others lost much in defense of that flag and the principles for which she flies. It's now one's right to burn the Stars and Stripes as much as it is others to risk all to defend her. When the two meet, trouble is sure to transpire. Do we need an amendment? No, we just need more willing to kick ass to defend her.
I pity those who are so simple they can view the Stars and Stripes as "just a piece of cloth." I'm almost positive those who'd burn it in protest hold a more complex view of its symbolism than the former.
So, what's the point in burning it if one's not protesting what the symbol REPRESENTS?
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.