Us House Passes Flag Burning Amendment

[cbacon 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4122814.stm

 

The US House of Representatives has approved a constitutional amendment allowing lawmakers to ban flag burning.

 

The Republican-led House voted 286-130 on the divisive measure, which now goes before the Senate.

 

Similar moves in the past have failed to gather the three-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments in both houses of the US Congress.

 

The draft amendment aims to override a 1989 Supreme Court ruling protecting flag desecration as free speech.

 

The issue has been a rallying cause for conservatives ever since.

 

It gathered political momentum in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

 

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the World Trade Center," said Republican Randy Cunningham, a Californian congressman.

 

"Ask them and they will tell you - pass this amendment"

 

Senate hurdle

 

Wednesday's vote was the fifth time the Republican-dominated House has approved the amendment.

 

But so far it has failed to get the required 67 votes needed in the Senate.

 

However Democrats are divided on the issue, and recent changes in the Senate mean the measure could be approved.

 

"There are too many scenarios where we would lose," Terri Ann Schroeder of the American Civil Liberties Union - which opposes the amendment - told the New York Times.

 

The move does not directly prohibit desecration of the flag - but allows individual state legislatures and the US Congress to enact such a ban.

 

If the Senate in turn approves the amendment by a two-thirds majority, it still has to be ratified by 38 states.

 

The constitution has been amended 27 times, including the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

 

What the FUCK.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

So let me get this straight. People dying at the WTC = Go to jail for burning a flag? Yanno, I have never burned a flag. Never plan on it. But I don't think you should have to go to jail if you do.

 

If burning a flag reminds people of of just how much sacrifce has gone into making us who we are then damn the symbol lets give more money to the VA and the VFW THEN we'll show them real respect. By taking care of our own. Priorites are a bitch ain't they?

[Justice 0]

This'll never make it out of the Senate. As much as I'm against flag-burning, putting an amendment like this is a joke.

[NoCalMike 0]

This just makes me look back and laugh when people claim "We are a different nation after 9/11" Yes because NOW we are concentrating on the important things like cracking down on the 2-3 instances of flag burning per year. Seriously, is flag-burning some new epidemic that has been taken to the streets by the masses? When is the last time any of you saw someone in person burn a flag?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

This'll never make it out of the Senate. As much as I'm against flag-burning, putting an amendment like this is a joke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Plus, its not like there is rampant flag burning going on. This is kind of like one of those FARK articles that start with "Having solved all the worlds problems..."

[Justice 0]

Well, it's not an issue whether it's rampant or not. It's an issue of rights. Whether it never happens or it happens twice a day, the Constitution is not written with consideration of 'amount of occurrance' as it is 'Is this a fundamental right or not?"

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

Doesn't the government put old flags to rest by burning them?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Burning the flag is the proper way to destroy worn out flags only, however most American Legion posts will accept the worn out flags and they burn them on several occasions throughout the year. Oddly enough, they just pour diesel fuel on them and set em on fire.

 

Oh, and the Supreme Court said this back in 1989:

 

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

 

Also, I found this little tidbit:

 

Well, what about using the flag for commercial purposes?

 

Interestingly, that one's clear-cut.  It's absolutely illegal.  The Supreme Court decision Halter v Nebraska way back in 1907 held that you can't use the flag in advertising.  Other cases have upheld that commercial speech doesn't have the same protection as political speech.  So the Republican Party, which uses flags printed on its letterhead, is in clear violation of the Flag Protection Act of 1989, as well as all the other state and federal laws against flag desecration.  It's a wonder no one ever goes to jail for those crimes -- especially used car dealers with those flag pennants.

[Jingus 0]

Burning the flag is the proper way to destroy worn out flags only, however most American Legion posts will accept the worn out flags and they burn them on several occasions throughout the year.  Oddly enough, they just pour diesel fuel on them and set em on fire.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's probably the single funniest thing I'll hear all day.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Burning the flag is the proper way to destroy worn out flags only, however most American Legion posts will accept the worn out flags and they burn them on several occasions throughout the year.  Oddly enough, they just pour diesel fuel on them and set em on fire.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's probably the single funniest thing I'll hear all day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But its true.

[BruiserKC 0]

We're fighting a war against people who want to either destroy us or make us bow before Allah ultimately. Illegal aliens are swarming over the border and the politicians that are supposed to protect us are playing pocket pool.

 

Meanwhile, our politicans feel we need to protect us from just one or two putzes a year who feel they have to protest by using the flag for kindling.

 

Boy, our people have their priorities straight. (Note very heavy dripping sarcasm)

[snuffbox 0]

Its good that, even with all of Kerry's mentions of the lack of Homeland Security and the Republican parties gung-ho patriotism, this particular non-issue is a huge priority.

 

I mean why work towards checking all incoming packages and repairing our education system when we can boggle our minds and time with an ammendment that will effect a handful of retards with lighters.

 

Dumb.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I don't like the idea of a flag being burned when not part of a military protocol or something, but I don't want to restrict others from doing so.

 

Can't we just have a big-ass referendum with a bunch of stuff on it attached to the midterm elections for national consideration? It'd increase voter turnout if nothing else, even if they'd make it absolutely zero fun and scare off all potential voters anyway.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I just agreed with everything Kotz said

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Somebody ought to be booted out of Congress for this. Even if you agree with a ban on flag burning, this distracts Congress from spending time on pressing issues.

 

Think about it: You haven't seen any rash epidemics of flag burning lately, have you? Any mass flag burning events? No?

[The Czech Republic 0]

Exactly, they'd sneak this through while nobody cares.

 

And if we were booting people out of Congress for distracting from pressing issues, THERE WOULDN'T FUCKING BE ANYBODY LEFT.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Somehow I can see this flag-burning ammendment passing through the Senate with a half-billion in new spending attached to it...

[snuffbox 0]

Somehow I can see this flag-burning ammendment passing through the Senate with a half-billion in new spending attached to it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Half-billion? In a conservative congress? Sounds about right.

[SuperJerk 0]

Burning the flag is the proper way to destroy worn out flags only, however most American Legion posts will accept the worn out flags and they burn them on several occasions throughout the year.  Oddly enough, they just pour diesel fuel on them and set em on fire.

 

Oh, and the Supreme Court said this back in 1989:

 

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

 

Also, I found this little tidbit:

 

Well, what about using the flag for commercial purposes?

 

Interestingly, that one's clear-cut.  It's absolutely illegal. The Supreme Court decision Halter v Nebraska way back in 1907 held that you can't use the flag in advertising. Other cases have upheld that commercial speech doesn't have the same protection as political speech.  So the Republican Party, which uses flags printed on its letterhead, is in clear violation of the Flag Protection Act of 1989, as well as all the other state and federal laws against flag desecration.  It's a wonder no one ever goes to jail for those crimes -- especially used car dealers with those flag pennants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Art Sandusky 0]

Somehow I can see this flag-burning ammendment passing through the Senate with a half-billion in new spending attached to it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Half-billion? In a conservative congress? Sounds about right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong, in a Republican Congress. They haven't been real conservatives for a while now.

[snuffbox 0]

I know Kotz...but Republicans are supposed to still be a party of fiscal conservatism (an area where I agree with them most), but clearly are not.

[Justice 0]

Yeah, for real. That was a disappointment.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Bah. What rubbish.

 

Personally, I hate flag burners and would love to see them all lined up and shot in the face. That said, I think burning the flag is a protected form of speech, and needs to remain so.

[ant_7000 0]

There's more issues to tackle than flag burning. @the Government