Flag Protection Amendment

[A18]

What a waste of time.

With regard to the balanced budget provision, I would have supported the amendment if it included that, but I will point out that probably would have ruined its chances of passing either house of Congress.

[A18]

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.

[A18]

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 passed the Senate 69-29, and the House without a rollcall vote.

[A18]

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.

[A18]

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?

[A18]

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?

[A18]

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.

[A18]

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.

[A18]

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

[A18]

Neither do I.

[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.

[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.

[A18]

Yes, it matters since I was responding to someone who cited the U.S. flag code's text, "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning" as a reason not to pass the amendment.

The Congress should have the power to ban flag burning in the territories, and the states should have that power within their boundaries.

[A18]

The Congress should have the power to ban flag burning in the territories, and the states should have that power within their boundaries.

Why?


BTW - people should write their Senators telling them to vote against this crap. http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I should be more clear. I would support a federal constitutional amendment banning the fed from restricting flag burning in the territories, and a state constitutional amendment banning my state from restricting flag burning in Virginia. However, no such amendments exist, and so I believe the Congress has to legal right to legislate in these matters. Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean it should be declared unconstitutional.

If this was already declared unconstitutional...

Then what? It was declared unconstitutional. That's kind of the point to the amendment.

[A18]

Well, actually a series of state state statutes. I'm sure he understands that the amendment was not found unconstitutional.

And if we're going to amend the Constitution which has only been done 27 times in the past, shouldn't it be over something a little more serious?

Yeah, and really only 18 times (ten of those articles were added at once).

[A18]

While I'm rather neutral on this amendment, it is not "forced patriotism" of any kind.