Brit Hume: Flag-burning ban fails by one vote (to be discussed on the "All Star" panel)

FoxNewsChannel ^ | 6-27-06 | DTogo

[TexasTaysor]

Whether THE flag has thirteen stars or 50, it is either the flag of this country past or present....it's still the flag that represents this country. Too many men (and now some women) have fought, spilled blood and many died for that flag (past or present). It's the symbol of our country and if we don't keep some things sacred in this country so that people understand there is (at least by some, including those who represent us) a respect for them, nothing will be held sacred any more.

[bnelson44]

"It doesn't but the USSC has ruled its political speech and is currently the law."

The USSC needs better justices. Another reason to vote Republican.

"All I'm saying is I hate to see the Constitution being amended in such a way. That should be messed with as little as possible and in fact too many amendments have been tagged onto it already."

Agreed. I am just pointing out that this flag burning stuff has nothing to do with the Constitution and can be handed by a good law and good justices in the SCOTUS.

[1rudeboy]

Just think of all the dope-smoking longhairs that would do it just to get arrested, imagine the slimy leftist lawyers that would take the cases pro bono, consider the fawning articles in the press, and the limp-wristed activist judges that would acquit. No thanks.

[HIDEK6]

Brit said only 3 republicans voted against it

You can add HIDEK6 to that list.

I swear, this is one of the stupidest things you can waste your time on.

As I recall this was a pet cause of George H. W. Bush, he who brought us handicapped parking spaces and ADA, a similar waste of time.

[Cobra64]

I don't think it's a good idea. Too many unresolved issue. One thing is what defines a flag.

Well that should not be too difficult. The American flag is something that looks like this:

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Well they can keep trying then to pass new laws that are more narrowly defined and maybe a new court will hear it.

[loboinok]

I do not understand why you believe it logical to compare an act of burning property owned by the individual who does the burning to an act of theft and destruction of property not owned by the destroyer.

Correct, you do not understand.

I can buy pieces of metal and pieces of cloth and they are my personal property. If I shape them in a particular way, they are still my property. If I pin them on my uniform, representing something that I neither earned or am entitled to, I can be charged.

[Blackirish]

All I know is thats there is not a dimes worth of difference between pathetic little weasels like you, and the left, the rats, and liberals, who spend all of their time tearing down our President.

---

Lame attack.....by some one who tags himself "AmericaUnited".

This was a pathetic attempt by pols of both parties to waste 4 days of taxpayer money grandstanding on phony patriotism. They insult our intelligence.....

like it or not W went along with this sham.

[DManA]

It's an amendment to give Congress more power. I'm against it.

[Republican Wildcat]

"It doesn't but the USSC has ruled its political speech and is currently the law." The USSC needs better justices. Another reason to vote Republican.

Under that definition, "better" justices would be those like Stevens, and "bad" justices would be those like Scalia.

[Dimensio]

I can buy pieces of metal and pieces of cloth and they are my personal property. If I shape them in a particular way, they are still my property. If I pin them on my uniform, representing something that I neither earned or am entitled to, I can be charged.

The charge is for "impersonation" because of specific implications and potential for damage as a result of that impersonation. Please identify the damage that results from desecration of a US flag.

[Cobra64]

Not..."A"....flag. It's THE U.S.A. stars and stripes. THE flag of OUR country.

Maybe he's from one of those Islamic countries and doesn't know what an American flag is.

[DTogo]

If that's the case, shall we just move to anarchy and have it out on the streets?

Fort Sumter anyone?

[1rudeboy]

Burning the flag is not "anarchy." Nor is our Republic threatened by it . . . I'm with Nino on this one: there is no flag-burning exception to the First Amendment.

[OldFriend]

How about burning crosses, that okay?

Burning a koran?

Evidently America can find it in it's heart to protect a lot of icons, but not our flag.

How very sad.

[glorgau]

What's the White House got next to avoid talking about immigration?

Gays in the military? Something to do with religion might work.

[DTogo]

As I said in post #50, there are certainly more pressing issues to deal with.

[glorgau]

The whole flag burning issue is so stupid. So what if someone burns a flag? They've proven that they are an idiot. Big Deal.

[Dimensio]

How about burning crosses, that okay?

I am continually puzzled by the false comparisons raised here. No one has suggested that flag burning is "okay". The only statement made in opposition is that flag desecration should not be criminally penalized.

[UCANSEE2]

"Too many unresolved issue. One thing is what defines a flag. "

Apparently, this man, and the PGR, know what a flag is.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654452/posts