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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 next last
To: Dimensio

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

Please explain how one implies the other.



Those who'd burn her don't do so because her colors are off-hue, they burn her because they dislike what she represents.


81 posted on 06/29/2006 3:27:26 AM PDT by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
Those who'd burn her don't do so because her colors are off-hue, they burn her because they dislike what she represents.

That does not explain how freedom of speech is burned by the act of flag burning.
82 posted on 06/29/2006 5:49:01 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
So, what's the point in burning it if one's not protesting what the symbol REPRESENTS?

You are attempting to claim that protesting what a flag represents is the same action as burning what the flag represents. An individual who burns a flag is effectively protesting the rights and freedoms that I enjoy from this country, however my rights and freedoms are not "burned" from this act; I still retain them no matter how much lighter fluid the flag burner uses.
83 posted on 06/29/2006 5:50:45 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
If you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, why the hell should anyone be allowed to light one???

Non-sequitur.
84 posted on 06/29/2006 5:51:17 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Lighting a fire in public is a public safety issue... not an issue of speech...

As I said before, "desecration" and "burning" are not synonyms. There are means of desecrating an object of worship without lighting a fire. Moreover, I have never suggested that public burning laws should not be enforced when the object being burned is a US flag.
85 posted on 06/29/2006 5:52:45 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Good. Now get back to work on real issues.


86 posted on 06/29/2006 5:58:12 AM PDT by steve-b (Hoover Dam is every bit as "natural" as a beaver dam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68

The Senate did its job for a change and buffered the populist leanings of the House.

Flag protection is a very poor amedment.


87 posted on 06/29/2006 5:58:24 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Yelling "fire" and actually lighting one are different things...

Arson is not speech...


88 posted on 06/29/2006 6:02:16 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I still retain them no matter how much lighter fluid the flag burner uses.

Not if it burns down your house next to mine, my business OR THE CITY I PAID TAXES TO BUILD AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT I PAID WITH TAXES TO RESPOND!

89 posted on 06/29/2006 6:07:28 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Now get back to work on real issues.

Public safety is a real issue if we are talking about fires...

90 posted on 06/29/2006 6:09:03 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Paintings, music, etc., are not the same as fire.

Would you like to see the government limit political satire in the form of cartoons or theater?

But since you draw the line at fire, I'm willing to bet that there are all kinds of items or symbols that you'd be willing to see burn as a sign of protest...islamic flags or pictures; KKK robes or flags; anything French; Dixie Chick items...as long as it isn't something YOU like and find precious.

And now for the obligatory disclaimer: Yes, I find flag burning offensive and distasteful, especially since most who do so have never done anything to promote liberty and freedom. Yet we loose a measure of freeedom when distasteful political protest is banned by the government.

Do you think that a faithful German or Russian could have burned their flags in protest over what their governments were doing to their countries? WE both know the answer to that one, don't we?

91 posted on 06/29/2006 6:09:50 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

I do not care about what is being burned, open fires in public is a threat to public safety... it is not speech...

Fire is not speech, never has been, never will be...


92 posted on 06/29/2006 6:14:06 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Would you like to see the government limit political satire in the form of cartoons or theater?

Whoda thunk that Sir Francis was on the side of the Muslims?

93 posted on 06/29/2006 6:27:43 AM PDT by steve-b (Hoover Dam is every bit as "natural" as a beaver dam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Fires are not speech, you are correct.

Are drawings speech? No. Should a drawing of a fat-assed hillary or a Pinochio-nosed bill clinton be protected or should they be regulated by the federal government?

Is mime or silent theater speech? No. Should the fedgov regulate political satire done in mime or silent theater?

If you cannot object to burning a Koran or Nazi in protest, then you can't object to burning a US flag without abandoning principle. No, I wouldn't do anything to stop someone from burning a Koran or Nazi flag but I probably would if I saw someone doing the same to a US flag. Just because the feds don't regulate something doesn't mean there won't be repercussions for such activity done in public.

And we both know that the public safety aspect is hogwash and need not be mentioned any more. Too many ways exist to satisfy safety issues for that to be anything more than verbal static.


94 posted on 06/29/2006 6:32:01 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

It is funny how issues like this reveal totalitarian leanings in so called freepers.


95 posted on 06/29/2006 6:33:20 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: isaac32
That way we won't need an amendment. Just tell the cops when they come to arrest you that you were exercising your first amendment right to free speech as you kick butt when you are angry as words escape you.
Does the first amendment to the US constitution permit dealing with everyone who has a different opinion by "kicking his butt"? Or does it just protect freedom of speech?
96 posted on 06/29/2006 6:40:43 AM PDT by freedom moose (has de cultivar el que sembres)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You are attempting to claim that protesting what a flag represents is the same action as burning what the flag represents.

No I am not. I think I'd made that clear. Those who'd burn the flag in protest of those freedoms you enjoy are the selfsame ones who'd as soon see your loss of them in favor of their own Utopia. In your opinion, is their position "protected speech"? or do you see it as a potential threat to your freedom? If not, then why not? You'd not so readily afford an avowed enemy of the US the same latitude, would you? Or is the willingness to grant "freedom of speech" protection to burning the flag as protest of America's freedoms a guise for a measure of cowardice to protect them? Exactly how much protection should we offer those who would use our rights and freedoms as tools to attack and destroy us? IMO, I'd say we give them exactly what they wish - we should offer them NONE of the protected freedoms they so sorely hate.

Persons of greater courage than we have and do expend extreme sacrifice to preserve those freedoms represented by the Stars and Bars and those willing to burn her in protest of what she represents does so in contempt of those who have paid and will pay the price necessary to preserve her. Some would claim those freedoms also envelope that of burning the flag. I simply disagree. I believe coverage under those freedoms should end with the ignition of the match.

Lighting the fire isn't the threshold of contempt, the mindset behind it is. Lighting the fire is just a manifestation of the "heart". Although I don't think an amendment is necessary, I think lawfully banning the burning just drives an enemy underground whereas otherwise they could be publicly marked where appropriate measures could possibly be taken.

97 posted on 06/29/2006 6:43:19 AM PDT by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
This Amendment is essentially boob bait, to get people's minds off more important issues like illegal immigration and budget deficits. The same could be said for the so-called marriage amendment that failed a few weeks ago. It provides cover for moderate Democrats and RINOs who want to appear patriotic and conservative in a re-relection year. The powers that be never wanted the flag burning amendment passed, and the 66-34 vote was likely crafted to protect incumbents, especially in red states. Two Republicans from red states, McConnell of Kentucky (ACU rating 90) and Bennett of Utah (ACU rating 87), who are not up for re-election, voted against the amendment. OTOH, Democrat Senator Bill Nelson of Florida (ACU rating 18) voted for the amendment. He is up for re-election in a red state against a weak GOP candidate (Katherine Harris), but obviously does not want to provide her with ammunition.

The real remedy for issues such as flag burning and "gay" marriage may be found in limiting the power of the Federal courts to rule in these matters. To do so does not require a Constitutional amendment, but it would mean that Congress must use its authority, granted in the Constitution, to establish Federal courts as well as the range of their jurisdiction. The judicial branch has been expanding its authority against the executive and legislative branches since the days of John Marshall and has become the most powerful of the three branches. This power is far beyond that exercised by courts in other Anglosphere nations, not to mention the other Western democracies. It is past time that Congress reined in the judiciary.

98 posted on 06/29/2006 6:43:49 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
I think it should be legal to burn the Flag. It's a matter of free speech. But I think there should be a law to protect the publice safety.

So I propose that if you decide to exercise your right to free speech and want to burn the American Flag. You have to burn it in a close container where it will not be a fire hazard and no one is in danger.

Now, if others can't see you are burning a flag because it is in a closed container, you might want to think of another way to express your sentiments.

Also, if you fail to comply with the close container law. You should be jailed for 5 years and fined $50,000.

Just my feelings on Flag burning.

99 posted on 06/29/2006 6:46:15 AM PDT by A Cyrenian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Arson is not speech...

I made no such claim. Arson is a crime and should be punished as such regardless of what is burned.
100 posted on 06/29/2006 6:46:56 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 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