• commentary
  • TUESDAY JUNE 27 2006 6:00 PM

Senate Rejects Flag Burning Amendment

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Tags: flag burning, constitution, Republicans, election

There are plenty of problems with the modern incarnation of the political protest. The typical protest is overweighed by a veritable rainbow of different groups clamoring for different causes, many of them so outlandish and fringe that it's difficult to believe they take themselves seriously. There's the inevitable man-on-stilts in the crowd, the people wearing papier mache caricatures of political figures, the people who don't really realize what the protest is about, the Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier supporters (regardless of the topic at hand) who couldn't tell you a thing about the people they seek to liberate. All in all, political protests are often a motley crew of progressives looking to change the world all at once, and unfortunately without a whole lot of success lately. What isn't found at modern political protests much any more, however, is people burning the American flag. This form of protest fell out of fashion about thirty years ago, likely when protesters realized that it was a quick and effective way to make sure that no one gave a second thought to the topic you were attempting to address because they were so irritated by you burning their flag. Regardless, flag burning is yet again on top of the GOP agenda for this summer's legislative session, and what's even more odd is that the often discussed and wholly irrelevant consitutional amendment banning came one vote away from passing this time around.

The U.S. Senate rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to empower Congress to outlaw flag burning, falling one vote short of the two-thirds majority required to send the measure to the states for ratification.

The vote was 66-34 in favor of the amendment. Sixty-seven votes are required to approve a constitutional amendment.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must also be ratified by 38 state legislatures. Republicans argued that 48 states had outlawed flag desecration before a Supreme Court decision in 1989 invalidated a Texas law. They noted that all 50 state legislatures have passed resolutions urging Congress to approve a constitutional amendment.

Democrats accused the Republicans of ignoring more pressing issues, such as spiraling health-care costs, to score election- year points over flag burning. Democrats made the same charge earlier this month when Senate Republicans unsuccessfully sought a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

``Why are we here? Because the White House and the congressional Republican leadership are nervous about the upcoming election,'' Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, said during today's debate in Washington. ``We are not setting out to protect Old Glory. We are setting out to protect old politicians.''

Republicans said the issue is above politics, citing bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, which has passed a flag-burning amendment six times in the last 12 years.

``Bringing it up at this time is certainly not an election- year ploy,'' said Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, the measure's prime sponsor. ``We have Democrats and Republicans who feel deeply about this.''


The "debate" is standard fare in what has come to pass for modern political discourse; the farcical discussions that constantly go back and forth in Washington these days. Republicans loudly and brashly trumpet their newest law or constitutional amendment, declaring themselves patriotic in the process, all the while claiming that anyone (ie. Democrats) who opposes their latest brainchild is somehow unamerican or unpatriotic or wants to make out with Osama bin Laden. And then Democrats are shocked, shocked that anyone would be so crass as to challenge their patriotism, and then proceed to vote for whatever the Republicans are trying to pass because they're afraid people might challenge their patriotism. If it weren't so depressing it would be boring. What's especially unfortunate this time, however, is the open support that some Democrats gave it.

The House, meanwhile, has already passed the flag amendment, under the unlikely leadership of Jack Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat, and Duke Cunningham, a now-convicted California Republican.


And Harry Reid, along with 13 other Democratic Senators voted for it. So even senior Democrats are jumping on the bandwagon. What's surprising is who lead the charge against it.

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the deputy Republican leader, voted against the amendment. McConnell has said he favors upholding First Amendment values. Two other Republicans, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Robert Bennett of Utah, also opposed the amendment.


I'm no fan of Mitch McConnell, but it's nice to see him take a principled stand for something, even if there is some devious plan for personal political gain underlying it.

At issue here is the politicization of a mode of free expression that many undoubtedly find distasteful. I'm not personally all that offended by seeing an American flag burn, but neither would I choose to do so. Regardless, my personal preferences, and the preferences of people like Bill Frist and Orrin Hatch are irrelevant when it comes to determining a constitutional basis for expression. When people like them try to desecrate a document like the constitution by writing in idiocy like the flag burning amendment it's far more offensive than burning a simple flag ever could be. Fortunately the Senate, by the tiniest margin possible, agreed.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
Subnatural

Subnatural

Milwaukee, WI
June 2004

JUN 27, 2006 06:57 PM

The vote was so close because it was all about election year politics. The Republicans know they are on the ropes, so they need to do as much as possible to shore up their votes. As for the Democrats, by showing some support for it, they stand a better chance of winning over swing voters. After all, what are the liberals going to do? Vote Republican? I don't think so. And as for the few Republican senators who voted against the amendment, they can tell that it is time to start being moderate again if the GOP hopes to stay in power.

In short, this vote was more about them than us.

OctEgon

OctEgon

Tustin, CA
July 2005

JUN 27, 2006 06:58 PM

Uhm....why don't they just make flame retardant flags?

saintverlaine

saintverlaine

Hollywood, FL
April 2003

JUN 27, 2006 06:58 PM

like burning the flag, banning the burning of the flag is a symbolic gesture to those you wish to gain favor with, in this case the conservitive right who are waiting for their promised day in the sun.

Even if it passes, it needs to be ratified. Ask the Equal rights Amendment folks how well ratification by the states is going.

PhLaXuS

PhLaXuS

Fort Lauderdale, FL
November 2005

JUN 27, 2006 08:21 PM

OctEgon said:
Uhm....why don't they just make flame retardant flags?



That's amazingly simple. If I gave a damn and were so inclines and had loads of money, I'd pay off all the flag manufacturers to secretly make them flame retardant -- just to see the look of people's faces when they couldn't blaze them at rallys. Good stuff.

But on a serious note: I've never done it solely because I've never needed to, but something that gets so many people's attentions is bound to be a good thing to be able to excercise.

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

JUN 27, 2006 08:23 PM

PhLaXuS said:

OctEgon said:
Uhm....why don't they just make flame retardant flags?



That's amazingly simple. If I gave a damn and were so inclines and had loads of money, I'd pay off all the flag manufacturers to secretly make them flame retardant -- just to see the look of people's faces when they couldn't blaze them at rallys. Good stuff.

But on a serious note: I've never done it solely because I've never needed to, but something that gets so many people's attentions is bound to be a good thing to be able to excercise.



Well... money rules the world anyways..... wouldnt be much of a stretch to use it to fuck over the hippies too... tongue

heresy2007

heresy2007

New Paltz, NY
July 2004

JUN 27, 2006 08:25 PM

wonder if that has anything to do with the First Amendment??? whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

JUN 27, 2006 08:28 PM

heresy2006 said:
wonder if that has anything to do with the First Amendment??? whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever



*blatant sarcasm* Hey now..... dont start bringing God into this..... I dont care what Moses brought down from the mountain, it has NOTHING to do with our Goverment...

tongue

heresy2007

heresy2007

New Paltz, NY
July 2004

JUN 27, 2006 08:29 PM

On second thought,

I'll burn a flag,
then another one,

then ten more,

on the day this amendment does pass.

And I'll do it in front of a federal building.



(which reminds me, when the night that Reagan passed his law banning flag burning, more flags were burned within the next 24 hours then had been in over ten years)

to quote a wonder person I know:

"I burn the flags I wave"

jonzes

jonzes

Madison, WI
July 2003

JUN 27, 2006 08:38 PM

Here's a question, if I made a tiny american flag out of sodium and then accidently exposed it to air causing it to self combust would I have violated the constitution of the united states?

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

JUN 27, 2006 08:39 PM

jonzes said:
Here's a question, if I made a tiny american flag out of sodium and then accidently exposed it to air causing it to self combust would I have violated the constitution of the united states?



If this ammendmant passes.... probably... but Id love to see it, then lie to the cops about it.

TheInsomniac

TheInsomniac

Washington, DC
October 2003

JUN 27, 2006 08:44 PM

jonzes said:
Here's a question, if I made a tiny american flag out of sodium and then accidently exposed it to air causing it to self combust would I have violated the constitution of the united states?



Actually an interesting question if you consider that the
exact wording of the proposed amendment doesn't specifically outlaw burning the flag. It outlaws any form of desecration.

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

JUN 27, 2006 08:47 PM

SaintInsomniac said:

jonzes said:
Here's a question, if I made a tiny american flag out of sodium and then accidently exposed it to air causing it to self combust would I have violated the constitution of the united states?



Actually an interesting question if you consider that the
exact wording of the proposed amendment doesn't specifically outlaw burning the flag. It outlaws any form of desecration.



So the question i: does Burning the Flag as a symbol of protest constitute a "desecration"....

heresy2007

heresy2007

New Paltz, NY
July 2004

JUN 27, 2006 08:47 PM

SaintInsomniac said:

jonzes said:
Here's a question, if I made a tiny american flag out of sodium and then accidently exposed it to air causing it to self combust would I have violated the constitution of the united states?



Actually an interesting question if you consider that the
exact wording of the proposed amendment doesn't specifically outlaw burning the flag. It outlaws any form of desecration.



What if the flag is made in China?

Then,
wouldn't we be essentially burning the Chinese flag? Considering that well, essentially the flag producers are in fact outsourcing the production of OUR national symbol to a nation that is our competetor, all for a penny on the buck?

Seems more patriotic to me to burn the US flags made in China, then it does not to...

But hey, that's just a taste of realism, and we dont want that in an election year now do we?

jonzes

jonzes

Madison, WI
July 2003

JUN 27, 2006 08:56 PM

How about I sew a flag but make one star slightly mishapen. Have I desecrated the theory of the flag by making improperly? If not can it be desecrated because it is not EXACTLY a flag?

Cash

Cash

USA
OLD SKOOL

JUN 27, 2006 08:57 PM


Republicans said the issue is above politics.



The job of a politician is to serve the needs of their constituents. If Republicans believe that this issue is above politics...then the issue is outside the realm of their authority.

I am fairly confident that burning a flag...any flag is already illegal in most places. I doubt very strongly that local city ordinances & fire codes permit open fires outside of designated areas. In my opinion...that is as far as any legislation needs to go.

If some yahoo wants to burn a flag in a safe, controlled atmposphere...such as a fire pit in a state park...campground...or their own barbecue at home...so be it. If they want to apply for a bonfire permit and toss a flag on top of the rest of the fire load...so be it. I may personally think you;re an asshole for doing so...but it's not a pressing enough matter for be to think that we need a Constitutional fucking Amendment.

A Constitutional Amendment banning the desecration of the flag is an insult to the document itself. Burning the flag does not infringe on anyone's civil rights. It does not threaten anyone's life, liberty or their pursuit of happiness. It does not deprive them of anything. In my personal opinion...it does make you an asshole...but being an asshole is not against the law...and it certainly does not stand against the intentions of our forefathers.

The Congress of the United States of America...getting it wrong for over 200 years.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

featured interviews