Posted on 06/28/2006 7:19:48 AM PDT by steve-b
The headline on foxnews.com this morning read "First Amendment Lives Another Day." Well put. The so-called "Flag burning" amendment to our Constitution has failed ... by one vote. Freedom wins ... by one vote.
Get down on your knees and thank God or Allah or whom ever is politically correct to worship these days; the flag burning amendment failed in the Senate! The scary part, folks, is that it failed by just one vote. One vote! That means sixty-six of our Senators (out of 100) voted in favor of an amendment that would limit your right to freedom of expression. Sixty-four Senators wanted to use the United States Constitution to limit your freedoms, rather than to limit the range of government power.
The three key Republican "nay" notes went to Robert Bennett of Utah, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island. While their heads may be on the chopping block come November, at least there seems to be a few politicians who are voting based on reason rather than re-election.
The New York Times astutely points out that this was a close call, but there is no need to worry about future votes because "...most analysts expect Republicans to lose Senate seats in the November election." Most analysts? Could the New York Times, the "godfather" of print journalism, not be any more specific? Maybe they were too busy printing top-secret stories about how we track terrorists. Go figure.
So why do politicians keep coming back to this issue? Well, for one, it's very popular. Poll after poll shows that the idea of a flag-burning amendment is popular. That's not surprising in this age when so many Americans has lost their love of true freedom. The same polls also show that an amendment banning gay marriage would be a good idea, even though both ideas are terrible. But it's a cheap and easy way for politicians to change the subject in Washington and start debating. It's another way for them to look like they're doing something.
But they'll never give up. The lure of political pandering is far too great.
A rather extreme view as the limitation is extremely narrow. There are many more broad limitation already in place.
I agree with the article. I think any respectable person would never think of burning the American flag simply out of respect. But our fallen heroes died protecting exactly what is being taken away by this amendment - freedom of expression. For me, it's not just about the flag, it's what's next? Banning "unpatriotic" books for example?
Plus, I do find it interesting that Congress is focusing on this issue, along with gay marriage, and upcoming is abortion laws and gun control - all in an election year. My question is, are they really serious or just want your vote? I'm inclined to go with the latter.
Any idea as to why Boortz believes an amendment banning gay marriage would be a terrible idea? He's certainly not very specific in the article.
If we can burn the flag in public then we should certainly be able to condemn the homosexual perverts in public.
Nonsense.
The article is slightly correct but hyperbole.
There are many and numerous restrictions on freedom of speech. The most important is probably McCain Feingold campaign finance.
Dems and liberals totally support the idea that the first amendment prohibits pro religious speech that might impact politics adversely for them. They term this separation of church and state.
The idea that flag burning is the key core to first amendment freedom is ridiculous. Anti American hatred is one of the Left's key concepts.
Where was the crowd on the Mohammed cartoon?
Silent.
Because it must be anti american or anti bush to be free speech.
I'm offended, like many Americans, when someone burns the flag, but I have to admit that the whole constitutional amendment thing is cynically timed by Republicans so they can use it for attack ads in the fall.
The GOP failed to back the president on reforming social security, they failed to back him on a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage, and they're tepid at best on making Bush's tax cuts permanent. They've been timid over opening ANWR. They caved over judicial filibusters when they had the opportunity to gut the left's power over the one stronghold they still maintain: the courts.
The only things they've really accomplished since they have controlled all the branches of government is passing laws that have benefited big banking concerns. They made bankruptcy for poor folks harder to obtain. They weakened the laws that separate investment and insurance companies.
Now, when facing the voters again, they need a "Willie Horton" issue to trot out for sound bytes. Wave the flag, show a picture of it burning, and blame the Democrats. If they really wanted my vote, they'd have acted positively to cripple the liberal agenda and shored up conservatism for generations to come. If they had done that, they wouldn't be worried come November.
"If we can burn the flag in public then we should certainly be able to condemn the homosexual perverts in public"
You can...But they are also free to counter you in public. There is no law against you condemnimg homosexuals, but that doesn't mean someone else won't come and confront you. Just like if you saw someone burning a flag, you could condemn them in public all you want....It's all about making your point, and we shouldn't make that illegal for anyone no matter how much we disagree.
I must have missed the part in the constitution about freedom of "expression". What a crock.
I would like to drop a huge load at a Philadelphia Eagles game, right on the field, but I can't do that, either.
</sarcasm>
I see you watch alot of MSM news.
Perhaps because he either believes in the dying concept of federalism and/or because he knows traditional marriage is in no danger.
I agree with you on some points, but here is where I disagree... Liberals do not hamper your right to express your religion, or mine. No one can stop you from carrying a Bible, or wearing a cross around your neck close to your heart, or simply talking about your religion to other people. If someone challenges you, challenge them right back. But let's not forget that the reason our country is great is because we are able to express our ideas, and disagree with each other without fear of prosecution.
The original "Willie Horton issue" was Algore's idea. Wonder if he's got any more ideas like that one? (If he can take time off from saving us all from global catastrophe, of course.)
Guess you missed that bit in there about private property rights as well too huh?
There is little doubt that the left has threat constructed the "religious right" in regard to political speech.
Now they are reaping what they have sown. They are unable to make trustworthy religious appeals-- what a surprise!
The separation of church and state was never in the first amendment. MLK would have gotten NOWHERE in current political speak about religion.
I see bumper stickers on my campus saying the last time we mixed church and state we got the inquisition. I say the last time we mixed church and state we got the 1964 Civil Rights voting act.
The left does not respect the first amendment. They despise talk radio, the swift boat vets, the Church and are happy to gut freedoms if it means power for them.
Or perhaps because he has no understanding of the difference between license and liberty. After all life is just a moral free-for-all (or so the libertarians tell us)and government can play no role in the restraint of evil.
Ultimately there shouldn't have to be a ban as it doesn't meet the most basic deifinition of what constitutes a marriage. But such is the absurdity of the libertines.
There shouldn't have to be an amendment banning so-called gay marriage, but it's not for the reasons Boortz imagines.
They have a rather insulting view of the voters as a bunch of rubes who can be distracted with this sort of ridiculous spectacle.
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.