![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Commentary as soon as I eat.
The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.
You can only desecrate something that is sacred. *holds head* Sometimes I really do fear for this country.
By a 286-130 vote _ eight more than needed _ House members approved the amendment after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.
Proof that the House is full of morons and children who care more about their precious symbols than... wait, I'm jumping ahead of myself here.
Approval of two-thirds of the lawmakers present was required to send the bill on to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in years. If the amendment is approved in that chamber by a two-thirds vote, it would then move to the states for ratification.
I'm curious if most of the people reading this somehow never learned the basics of our government. This shouldn't have to be explained to them! Of course, considering what it discusses....
Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.
Ah, public sentiment. The reason we have the legislative body of our government is to follow the wishes of public consent. However, our founding fathers, in a bit of brilliant wisdom, recognized the need for a judicial branch to protect the needs of minorities against the tyranny of public sentiment. If public sentiment said that we should all jump off a bridge, I do hope that the people who support this amendment on the grounds of "public sentiment" would be the first to jump. I would like to snicker meanly as they fell.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."
And yet, I notice that you are speaking for them instead of letting them speak for themselves. If these people are so... vocal, so clear that you know what they want, why aren't they saying this?
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."
THANK YOU.
The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.
Of course, very few people do burn the flag. Ever. Not even when it's expected by our oh-so-beloved Flag Code.
The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.
Can we get one about how the people will have the power to prohibit the spiritual desecration of the constitution of the United States, by any means necessary? I could support that.
Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37.
No bloody comment.
But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.
By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.
The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.
Gotta love that timing. *sighs*
The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.
You can only desecrate something that is sacred. *holds head* Sometimes I really do fear for this country.
By a 286-130 vote _ eight more than needed _ House members approved the amendment after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.
Proof that the House is full of morons and children who care more about their precious symbols than... wait, I'm jumping ahead of myself here.
Approval of two-thirds of the lawmakers present was required to send the bill on to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in years. If the amendment is approved in that chamber by a two-thirds vote, it would then move to the states for ratification.
I'm curious if most of the people reading this somehow never learned the basics of our government. This shouldn't have to be explained to them! Of course, considering what it discusses....
Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.
Ah, public sentiment. The reason we have the legislative body of our government is to follow the wishes of public consent. However, our founding fathers, in a bit of brilliant wisdom, recognized the need for a judicial branch to protect the needs of minorities against the tyranny of public sentiment. If public sentiment said that we should all jump off a bridge, I do hope that the people who support this amendment on the grounds of "public sentiment" would be the first to jump. I would like to snicker meanly as they fell.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."
And yet, I notice that you are speaking for them instead of letting them speak for themselves. If these people are so... vocal, so clear that you know what they want, why aren't they saying this?
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."
THANK YOU.
The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.
Of course, very few people do burn the flag. Ever. Not even when it's expected by our oh-so-beloved Flag Code.
The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.
Can we get one about how the people will have the power to prohibit the spiritual desecration of the constitution of the United States, by any means necessary? I could support that.
Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37.
No bloody comment.
But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.
By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.
The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.
Gotta love that timing. *sighs*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 02:22 pm (UTC)And at what point will it occur to people that burning a flag is about the only way to get RID of it when you can't use it anymore?
I really don't understand people sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 02:24 pm (UTC)2. You can also bury it in a respectful ceremony. Or, apparently, dump it in the trash and cover it with used coffee grounds and cigarette butts.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 02:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 02:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 03:09 pm (UTC)Well, not after this amendment passes.
Seriously, this scares me. It has Dominionist handprints all over it. The flag is one of their favorite graven images.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 03:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 05:26 pm (UTC)Intellectually, my dad believes that too. Emotionally, on the other hand, he's still the kind of guy who prints out and passes around that thing about "It is the soldier who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped with the flag, who gives the protester the right to burn the flag." I printed out this comment thread for his edification, but I don't think he got the message, and I'm too chicken to ask him directly (at least until I have enough money and life-skills that I'm no longer dependent on my parents for room and board).
no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 02:22 pm (UTC)And at what point will it occur to people that burning a flag is about the only way to get RID of it when you can't use it anymore?
I really don't understand people sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 02:24 pm (UTC)2. You can also bury it in a respectful ceremony. Or, apparently, dump it in the trash and cover it with used coffee grounds and cigarette butts.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 02:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 02:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 03:09 pm (UTC)Well, not after this amendment passes.
Seriously, this scares me. It has Dominionist handprints all over it. The flag is one of their favorite graven images.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 03:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-22 05:26 pm (UTC)Intellectually, my dad believes that too. Emotionally, on the other hand, he's still the kind of guy who prints out and passes around that thing about "It is the soldier who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped with the flag, who gives the protester the right to burn the flag." I printed out this comment thread for his edification, but I don't think he got the message, and I'm too chicken to ask him directly (at least until I have enough money and life-skills that I'm no longer dependent on my parents for room and board).