Flag Protection Amendment
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:59:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Flag Protection Amendment
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Poll
Question: You you think the Constitution should be amended?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
Unsure
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 42

Author Topic: Flag Protection Amendment  (Read 6428 times)
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2005, 02:10:44 PM »


No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2005, 02:12:04 PM »


No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

Speaking is also an action
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2005, 02:13:24 PM »


No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

I don't know that it is protected under the first amendment, but I do know Congress has no right to ban it in the 50 states right now. See: tenth amendment, enumerated powers.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2005, 02:16:29 PM »

This is a goofball amendment proposed by members of congress who want to look like they are doing something patriotic. But do we need this amendment? When is the last time you saw someone burning a US flag in the US? Will it stop terrorists from attacking the US? Would it have prevented 9/11? Will it stop foreigners from burning US flags in other countries? In fact all this does is to create new restricitons on the actions of American citizens.


Hopefully the Senate will stop it.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2005, 02:16:40 PM »


No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

I don't know that it is protected under the first amendment, but I do know Congress has no right to ban it in the 50 states right now. See: tenth amendment, enumerated powers.

Almost all of the states have or had laws banning/prosecuting it before the Supreme Court sided with a criminal.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2005, 02:18:31 PM »


No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

Speaking is also an action

Which is directly addressed.  So is the Press.  Nothing is in there regarding "expression," which the majority of those who oppose the ban claim is implied.  Nothing within the first amendment covers flag burning.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2005, 02:19:09 PM »


No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

Speaking is also an action

Which is directly addressed.  So is the Press.  Nothing is in there regarding "expression," which the majority of those who oppose the ban claim is implied.  Nothing within the first amendment covers flag burning.

Nor online message boards.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2005, 02:20:30 PM »


No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

Speaking is also an action

Which is directly addressed.  So is the Press.  Nothing is in there regarding "expression," which the majority of those who oppose the ban claim is implied.  Nothing within the first amendment covers flag burning.

Nor online message boards.

Exactly.  This could easily be closed down, unless you want to put up an argument that this falls under the "press" since the press is speech in written form.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2005, 02:21:16 PM »

My main problem with this is not that it's a violation of free expression (it is, but a very minor one), but that it's a complete waste of an amendment.

Let's get a line-item veto, a balanced budget, and no presidential term limits.
None of that will ever get passed.
The balanced budget amendment fell one vote short in the Senate a few years ago, I believe.

Which Congress was that?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2005, 02:21:28 PM »


No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

Speaking is also an action

Which is directly addressed.  So is the Press.  Nothing is in there regarding "expression," which the majority of those who oppose the ban claim is implied.  Nothing within the first amendment covers flag burning.

Nor online message boards.

Exactly.  This could easily be closed down, unless you want to put up an argument that this falls under the "press" since the press is speech in written form.

So you think the government should be able to control what gets said through the online medium?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2005, 02:26:52 PM »


No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

Speaking is also an action

Which is directly addressed.  So is the Press.  Nothing is in there regarding "expression," which the majority of those who oppose the ban claim is implied.  Nothing within the first amendment covers flag burning.

Nor online message boards.

Exactly.  This could easily be closed down, unless you want to put up an argument that this falls under the "press" since the press is speech in written form.

So you think the government should be able to control what gets said through the online medium?

There is a lot about the internet which the government needs to go through and establish laws/parameters on.  Unfortunately/Fortunately they are slow to react.  Maybe online communication needs to be defined as speech, or associated with the press.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 22, 2005, 02:27:41 PM »

The 104th Congress.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2005, 02:36:38 PM »
« Edited: June 22, 2005, 02:40:12 PM by Emsworth »

The Supreme Court has long held that speech does not encompass just words, but also symbolic actions. There was a string of precedents upholding this view well before Texas v. Johnson. In Stromberg v. California, the Supreme Court upheld the right to fly a red (presumably pro-Communist) flag. Tinker v. Des Moines was a ruling that upheld the right to wear armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

Spence v. Washington, decided in 1974, was another flag desecration case; the Court invalidated the state of Washington's requirement that the flag be treated respectfully. The Court held that actions may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments." I see this as a perfectly valid interpretation, and note that the "strict constructionist" Antonin Scalia concurred in this view when Johnson was decided.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2005, 02:40:02 PM »

Ah, it actually fell short by two votes. It passed the House 300-132 though.

That makes me angry, though. Why in the world has this not been tried again, but the flag burning amendment has? And why, then, was the balanced budget addition to this amendment defeated recently?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2005, 02:42:53 PM »

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00098

If Dole and Hatfield had voted yes (both Republicans), the balanced buget amendment would have passed, and probably have become the 29th amendment by now.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2005, 02:43:37 PM »

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.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 22, 2005, 02:45:05 PM »
« Edited: June 22, 2005, 02:46:48 PM by Emsworth »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
As Dole was the Majority Leader, his vote was most likely procedural. (I believe that he was actually an avid supporter of the amendment.) By voting on the "winning" side, he would have got an opportunity to present a motion to reconsider at a later stage, perhaps after convincing another Senator to change his vote.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 22, 2005, 03:00:18 PM »

Well, Hatfield is no longer a senator, and the makeup of the Senate is actually more Republican now, so I think a balanced budget amendment could pass today.
Logged
Blue Rectangle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,683


Political Matrix
E: 8.50, S: -0.62

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 22, 2005, 03:21:17 PM »

The protection of free speech was not intended to allow people to offend each other, it was intended to protect legitimate political speech ... I still don't see what political message it communicates that is worth protecting
I intend no disrespect, but I do not feel that the government should be allowed to decide what is "worth protecting" and what is not.
But that's exactly the way it works now.  The courts decide what is protected and not protected on free speech issues.  If you think that the people, not the courts, should decide...well, that's what this amendment does (it's just that a super-majority disagrees with you).
Logged
Machiavelli
Rookie
**
Posts: 100


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 22, 2005, 04:01:21 PM »

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.

I didn't know you despised America that much.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 22, 2005, 04:05:30 PM »


^^^

Doesn't congress have more important things to worry about? 
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2005, 04:08:03 PM »


Wow, the statement I wrote, I didn't even see BRTD write before I posted it!  Amazing how much I agree with him on this issue.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: June 22, 2005, 05:20:04 PM »

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.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 22, 2005, 05:34:57 PM »

1.) No.
2.) Yes.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2005, 05:44:34 PM »

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.
Actually, it was the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA). The extreme left manged to get the media to call it the House Un-American Activities Committee to imply that it (the committee) was engaging in Un-American activities.
That form of nomenclature is not that unusual. We usually speak of the "Ways and Means Committee," the "Appropriations Committee," and the "Judiciary Committee." Rarely do we hear the official formal versions: "Committee on Ways and Means," "Committee on Appropriations," "Committee on the Judiciary."
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 14 queries.