Flag Protection Amendment

[© tweed]

No amendment is necessary

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Feinstein votes for this I'll probably vote Green. She's a real disappointment for being a San Francisco Democrat.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

and perhaps the most important question: Doesn't Congress have more important things to be concerned about than this "issue"?

Remember the Schiavo bill that was opposed 82-13 by average Americans?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd much rather prefer a revival of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) over some silly constitutional amendment to stop treasonous acts by those who hate America.

You mean like
1. People who out CIA agents
2. People who ignore the part of the constitution on formally declaring war?
3. People who ignore the part of the constitution on the Senate reviewing judicial candidates?

[John Dibble]

The amendment passed the House today, as expected, by a vote of 286-130. Prominent Republicans who voted against passage include David Dreier, Jeff Flake, Wayne Gilchrest, Jim Kolbe, and Ron Paul.

If there's a better man in the Republican Party than Ron Paul, I've yet to hear of him.

[Emsworth]

If there's a better man in the Republican Party than Ron Paul, I've yet to hear of him.

I think that Paul is one of the most principled members of Congress. He seems to have put principle ahead of politics in some of his more courageous votes, like the vote against giving the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks on the grounds that minting the medal would be too expensive.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

--Nelson Muntz

Uh, wouldn't that make the flag entirely red?

[migrendel]

Who the hell is Nelson Muntz?

[John Dibble]

If there's a better man in the Republican Party than Ron Paul, I've yet to hear of him.

I think that Paul is one of the most principled members of Congress. He seems to have put principle ahead of politics in some of his more courageous votes, like the vote against giving the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks on the grounds that minting the medal would be too expensive.

Well, he was once the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate - so him being principled is pretty much a given.

[A18]

Ahem. Remember Badnarik's taxpayer-funded "recounts" of Ohio?

[John Dibble]

Ahem. Remember Badnarik's taxpayer-funded "recounts" of Ohio?

Yeah, yeah. Aren't we picky.

[The Duke]

Who the hell is Nelson Muntz?

Why don't you just move to Russia saying stuff like that.  Who's Nelson Muntz, jeez.

[Blue Rectangle]

Who the hell is Nelson Muntz?

Ha Ha!  migrendel doesn't know who Nelson Muntz is!

[A18]

Neither do I.

[Ebowed]

Neither do I.

[The Duke]

From the Simpsons.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From the US flag code:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html


Why do the supporters of this amendment hate America?

[David S]

For those who are in favor of the amendment here's a suggestion: In the unlikely event you encounter someone burning a US flag, take his picture and then burn the picture. You will then have done as much harm to him as he did to America, zero!

[A18]

Try reading the amendment.

Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

The fact that Congress has the power to levy taxes, doesn't mean they have to levy every tax imaginable, and furthermore, it's desecration, not flag burning in general.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Try reading the amendment.

Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

The fact that Congress has the power to levy taxes, doesn't mean they have to levy every tax imaginable, and furthermore, it's desecration, not flag burning in general.

Congress can define desecration however they want.

[A18]

Try reading the amendment.

Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

The fact that Congress has the power to levy taxes, doesn't mean they have to levy every tax imaginable, and furthermore, it's desecration, not flag burning in general.

Congress can define desecration however they want.

Yes, thanks for repeating what I just said. And burning the flag to dispose of it, as their own U.S. flag code asks for, will not be included in their definition.

[Cashcow]

Horrible idea. Congress has lost its mind. Not that it ever had one to begin with.

[MODU]

Horrible idea. Congress has lost its mind. Not that it ever had one to begin with.

This has been going on since 1990.  Each time the bill is introduced, it passes the 67% mark in the House with no problem.  It just fails in the Senate by a few votes. 

[MODU]

From the US flag code:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html


Why do the supporters of this amendment hate America?

Retiring a flag is not desecration.  The proper way to retire a flag that is no longer in displayable condition is through buring it in a respectable manner.  Stomping on it, burning it, or tearing it for any other reason is desecration.

[John Dibble]

Try reading the amendment.

Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

The fact that Congress has the power to levy taxes, doesn't mean they have to levy every tax imaginable, and furthermore, it's desecration, not flag burning in general.

Does it matter? They shouldn't have the power in the first place.