Flag burning amendment

[nclib]

This is a two-part question:

First, do you think the flag-burning amendment will come up for a vote in the Democratic Senate?

Second, if it does, which of the new Democratic Senators (if any) will vote for it?

Note: I left off Cardin, Sanders, and Brown, because all three voted on it in the House (Brown for, Cardin and Sanders against).

[nclib]

I say it won't come up for a vote, but if it does, McCaskill, Casey, and Webb will vote for it and the others won't.

[Deano963]

It won't be be brought up. Harry Reid is looking to actually accomplish something important during his tenure as majority leader, unlike Bill Frist. Silly wedge issues have gone the way of the Do-Nothing Congress.

[nclib]

It won't be be brought up. Harry Reid is looking to actually accomplish something important during his tenure as majority leader, unlike Bill Frist. Silly wedge issues have gone the way of the Do-Nothing Congress.

Good to hear this, especially given that Reid voted for the Amendment.

[Deano963]

It won't be be brought up. Harry Reid is looking to actually accomplish something important during his tenure as majority leader, unlike Bill Frist. Silly wedge issues have gone the way of the Do-Nothing Congress.

Good to hear this, especially given that Reid voted for the Amendment.

Can you seriously not tell the difference  between voting for something out of political necessity and actually being the one to bring the issue to a vote?

[nclib]

It won't be be brought up. Harry Reid is looking to actually accomplish something important during his tenure as majority leader, unlike Bill Frist. Silly wedge issues have gone the way of the Do-Nothing Congress.

Good to hear this, especially given that Reid voted for the Amendment.

Can you seriously not tell the difference  between voting for something out of political necessity and actually being the one to bring the issue to a vote?

Of course there's a difference. But I wouldn't consider Reid needing to vote for it out of political necessity (Dorgan, Conrad, Pryor, Byrd, McConnell, and Bennett represent states more conservative than Nevada and all voted against the amendment).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Looks like I voted for McCaskill, Casey and Webb when this was around.

I was wrong about Webb: http://www.webbforsenate.com/press/release.php?id=56

Good for Webb.

So out of the new Dem Senators, that means:

Against:

Cardin
Sanders
Webb
Whitehouse
Tester

For:

McCaskill
Brown

No position taken yet:

Casey
Klobuchar

But I still doubt it'll even come up for a vote anyway.

[nclib]

Hopefully the Democrats will prevent it from coming to a vote. But even if it's voted on, the worst the roll call could be is 64-36.

[True Democrat]

Did all the outgoing Republicans (with the exception of Chafee of course) vote against it last time?

[nclib]

Did all the outgoing Republicans (with the exception of Chafee of course) vote against it last time?

If you mean "vote for it", then yes.

[True Democrat]

Did all the outgoing Republicans (with the exception of Chafee of course) vote against it last time?

If you mean "vote for it", then yes.

Yeah that's what I meant.  So, five who voted for and one who voted against left the Senate, and it lost by one vote if I recall correctly.  That means every new Democrat must vote for for it to pass, which is unlikely.

[adam]

I doubt it would come up for a vote. However, if for some reason it did, I could see Bob Casey and Jim Webb voting for it.

[nclib]

Did all the outgoing Republicans (with the exception of Chafee of course) vote against it last time?

If you mean "vote for it", then yes.

Yeah that's what I meant.  So, five who voted for and one who voted against left the Senate, and it lost by one vote if I recall correctly.  That means every new Democrat must vote for for it to pass, which is unlikely.

BRTD gave a link showing Webb being against the Amendment. Also, he said earlier in this thread that Whitehouse and Tester are against it.

[Cubby]

It won't come up for a vote, and even if it did, none of the Senators listed would vote for it. Small chance Webb would, but I doubt it.

Pryor, Lincoln and Landrieu would be more likely to vote for it, but not certain.

[Democratic Hawk]

Were I a Democratic senator, I'd most certainly re-introduce the Flag Desecration Amendment. Flag desecration is pretty abhorant

Nothing to do whatsoever with me wanting to stifle free speech, but some things should be sacrosanct and the flag is one of them

Dave

[nclib]

It won't come up for a vote, and even if it did, none of the Senators listed would vote for it. Small chance Webb would, but I doubt it.

Pryor, Lincoln and Landrieu would be more likely to vote for it, but not certain.

Based on past votes in the Senate, Pryor would vote against it, and Lincoln and Landrieu would vote for it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Were I a Democratic senator, I'd most certainly re-introduce the Flag Desecration Amendment. Flag desecration is pretty abhorant

Nothing to do whatsoever with me wanting to stifle free speech, but some things should be sacrosanct and the flag is one of them

Dave

What about the spitting chewing gum on the sidewalk constitutional admendment? We could use one of those, too.

[Ebowed]

Were I a Democratic senator, I'd most certainly re-introduce the Flag Desecration Amendment. Flag desecration is pretty abhorant

Nothing to do whatsoever with me wanting to stifle free speech, but some things should be sacrosanct and the flag is one of them

Dave

What other types of free speech do you favor banning, out of curiosity?

[Democratic Hawk]

What other types of free speech do you favor banning, out of curiosity?

Desecrating flags is not something I particularly consider to be free speech

Of course, there are types of free speech I would ban such as glorifying terrorism. That kind of thing which is totally alien to civil society and, of course, which threaten to undermine it

Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion on anything but that which incites violence, or glorifies it, crosses that fine line between civil liberties and taking liberties

While many people, undoubtedly disapprove, of such things as the Patriot Act and wire-tapping since they believe that they infringe upon civil liberties, I take the opposite view and see such measures as enhancing the civil liberties of those who don't pose a threat to it

But, as I've said as far as the flag is concerned, I consider it sacrosanct; therefore, inviolable

Dave

[Silent Hunter]

I've quoted it before and it's worth quoting again:

"Is there an epidemic of flag burning going on that I'm not aware of?"

I wouldn't support it if it came up for vote. Abhorrent, yes. But so is hard-core porn.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

It won't make it to a vote in the Democratic U.S. Senate, as they have nothing to gain from the issue.  And if it did, none of the new Dems would vote for it.

[Democratic Hawk]

Were I a Democratic senator, I'd most certainly re-introduce the Flag Desecration Amendment. Flag desecration is pretty abhorant

Nothing to do whatsoever with me wanting to stifle free speech, but some things should be sacrosanct and the flag is one of them

Dave

What about the spitting chewing gum on the sidewalk constitutional admendment? We could use one of those, too.

No

[Alcon]

Desecrating flags is not something I particularly consider to be free speech

Of course, there are types of free speech I would ban such as glorifying terrorism. That kind of thing which is totally alien to civil society and, of course, which threaten to undermine it

Terrorism is in the eye of the majority.  We already have laws against inciting violence.  Why restrict free speech any further?  (Granted, inciting violence is also in the eyes of the majority to some extent, but much more limitedly.)

Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion on anything but that which incites violence, or glorifies it, crosses that fine line between civil liberties and taking liberties

Flag burning doesn't really have to incite anything.  It can just be symbolic.

While many people, undoubtedly disapprove, of such things as the Patriot Act and wire-tapping since they believe that they infringe upon civil liberties, I take the opposite view and see such measures as enhancing the civil liberties of those who don't pose a threat to it

How does it enhance civil liberties?  (Fair question...) It may make people safer, but that isn't enhancing civil liberties.  It's still reducing them.

But, as I've said as far as the flag is concerned, I consider it sacrosanct; therefore, inviolable

Why consider it?  It's cloth.  It's symbolic, but you're not burning the thing of which it is a symbol.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, the flag is a symbol, but one that I feel warrants deference at the very least. Something which unites rather than divides regardless of whether you sit on the political spectrum

And for any one to desecrate such a symbol to me seems pretty much beyond the pale. You have to draw the line at some things and I consider flag desecration one of them

While many people, undoubtedly disapprove, of such things as the Patriot Act and wire-tapping since they believe that they infringe upon civil liberties, I take the opposite view and see such measures as enhancing the civil liberties of those who don't pose a threat to it

How does it enhance civil liberties?  (Fair question...) It may make people safer, but that isn't enhancing civil liberties.  It's still reducing them.

The way I see it is that if appropriate security measures weren't taken to enhance safety in a precarious world, with all kind of heinous threats out there, then I'd go as far to say that civil liberties are being seriously undermined. People should be able to walk down the street and go about their daily lives without fear of terrorism. In that way, such security measures, whether intrusive or not, enhance, rather than restrict, civil liberties

Dave