Senate Pushes Flag-Desecration Ammendment

I've never burned a flag before but I've never had a reason this good.

To protest this I've started a pledge to burn a flag on the 4th of July
if they pass this ammendment: I want to reach 90 people as soon as possible so that I can Email my senators and show them this ammendment will get more flags burned than ever before. Help me out by posting this on at least one other forum/blog/myspace bulletin.

www.pledgebank.com...


Flag-Burning Amendment One Vote From Passage
The U.S. Senate is one vote away from passing a constitutional amendment that would criminalize desecration of the U.S. flag.

If successful, it will mark the first time in 214 years that the Bill of Rights has been restricted by a constitutional amendment, and will place the United States among a select group of nations that have banned flag desecration, including Cuba, China, Iran, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Three reasons to oppose the flag amendment:

Flag burning is a non-problem: As Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) has said, I dont want to amend the Constitution to solve a non-problem. People are not burning the flag. One study found just 45 reported incidents in the over 200 years between 1777 and 1989, when the Flag Protection Act was first passed.

Flag burning is protected speech: The Supreme Court has twice ruled that destruction of the flag for political purposes, although highly offensive to most Americans, is undeniably a political statement and a political expression.

Amendment is vaguely worded: The amendment is phrased in such broad and vague language that it could include censorship of images of the flag in works of art, advertising, or commerce. Last week, the Senate spent time debating whether wearing a very skimpy bathing suit decorated with the flags stars and stripes would constitute desecration.

Now, aided by a handful of Democrats, the amendment has gathered 66 votes in favor, just one shy of passage. Whether advocates can find the 67th vote to send the flag amendment to the states for ratification remains unclear.

ThinkProgress has compiled a list of veterans, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who have offered their opposition to the flag burning amendment.

It amazes me that they would go to such lengths to solve a problem that doesn't exist rather than solve one of the many problems that do exist.

It was in my paper the other day in an editorial by a fellow who supported it. He mentioned a number of I believe some veteran's organization set up to protect the flag. According to it there were merely three burnings last year I believe it said.

It is not a problem. Not to mention that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is protected speech in Texas v. Johnson, (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, (1990).

Plus the amendment says "desecration" so this amendment is not only against burning. According to one definition "desecration" means "profanation: blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character".

So pretty much by having desecration it can by any act against the flag that can be deemed "blasphemous" against the flag. Who knows where that could be taken.

All this will do is create an increase of people willing to burn and desecrate the flag in protest.

[edit on 6-26-2006 by JediMaster]

I think they're pulling the old slight of hand trick again. Distract them with flag burning while______goes on right in front of them.

I don't understand how this is permited, considering that the SCOTUS already ruled that its protected under free speech.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't understand how this is permited, considering that the SCOTUS already ruled that its protected under free speech.

SCOTUS ruled against it unconstitutional because it was just a regular law and as such violated the constitution. This is an ammendment to the constitution which would fix the "unconstitutional problem.


Jedi Master. Good eye with the "desecration" relationship to the word "sacred". That's something I included in my LTE which will soon be published in the Keene Free Press.

When will someone propose a Constitutional Amendment banning frivolous, politically-driven Constitutional Amendment proposals during election years? Can't they come up with something new to keep the wingnuts occupied? Every election year, they drag out the same act : phony legislation they don't intend to pass anyway and thus only serve to provide fodder for the rightwing pundits and Party operatives.



No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our own soil
No more psychological warfare, to trick us to thinking that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country, we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes its all lies
The stars and stripes, they've been swiped, washed out and wiped
And replaced with his own face, Mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you know why,
Cause I told you to fight.
-Eminem


[edit on 26-6-2006 by Dubious_Skunk]

jedimaster is right about 'desecration being sacred' you can bet the non religious groups will jump on this.

atheism.about.com...

Hope you don't mind a canuck putting in their 2 cents but I guess it depends on what your flag stands for. When I see our flag blowing in the wind the last thing that comes to my mind is the government. Instead I see what the country encompasses, my home, my family and friends, beautiful landscape, rivers mountains and forests.

No government should ever replace the true symbolism of a flag. The flag is the peoples symbol representing their country. No matter how much I would ever hate a government in this country I would never burn a Canadian flag in protest for the simple reason the flag is a representaion of who I am and what I stand for.

The government abuse of a nations flag for partisan reasons is a terrible injustice,
but to me it would be a far greater injustice to be abused by the American people as you would stand as no different from that of the very people you are protesting.

Instead of burning American flags, why not line thousands upon thousands of them free and tall on Pennsylvania avenue and just set the Whitehouse on fire.

That's what we did when we didn't like your government.:

I've never burned a flag before but I've never had a reason this good

You could'nt of said it better imo . It does seem to defeat the point of 'freedom' which is what the flag is supposed to stand for, which......... ahh! my heads gonna explode

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Xeros]

Originally posted by alphacenturi
Instead of burning American flags, why not line thousands upon thousands of them free and tall on Pennsylvania avenue and just set the Whitehouse on fire.

That's what we did when we didn't like your government.

:

I like that alphacenturi! But something tells me that all the alphabet agencies wouldn't let anyone get close enough to try it...

Granted it might be (for now) your right to burn the flag. But what amazes me is that you would spit in the faces of thousands of vets who over the century or two have fought so you can do this. I bet your grandfather would have something to say about it. You could burn a flag in front of me (not advisable), and that is your right, but as a veteran I strongly recomend that you do not attempt to do such a thing in front of veterans, because you will in all probability get your A** thumped. Then after you go home with knowledge bumps you can think about how many men and women you spit on. You do not like our flag - fine, but don't disgrace the veterans who fought so hard for it over the last 200+ years.
If you were imprisoned in some foreign nation you would be very happy to see that flag. Tell the POWS about what you want to do and ask them why it is so important to them. Ask the mothers and fathers of dead veterans how they feel and then hear them out. If you had been in a war situation (I have) you would really be appreciative of the flag and after you came home you'd be happy to kiss or just see it.
It is your right I understand - but I hope and pray that the amendment gets passed just to show the young upstarts here in america that it does mean something to us vets. Something very special and sacred.

It is being reported that the vote did indeed fail. It was one vote short of getting the needed 2/3rds.

Way too close for comfort :shk: