Senate Narrowly Defeats Anti-Flag-Burning Amendment

[Pangloss]

Fascinating example of politics in action.

 

The US Senate defeated a no-flag-burning amendment tonight by a single vote. A similar amendment has already passed the House, enjoys the support of the President, and every single state's legislature (which, if I remember correctly, is where the final votes on amendments takes place) has written to Congress asking for the amendment, so this has to be viewed as a close decision.

 

There's a fairly comprehensive story here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2126480

 

One of the more interesting aspects of this story is that it was supported by a number of Democrats, including liberal icon Dianne Feinstein. Also of interest is the fact that three Republicans opposed the amendment, including Bennet of Utah, Chafee of Rhode Island (one of the "Gang of 14" that stopped the use of the "nuclear option" in regard to filibustering Presidential judicial nominees), and McConnel of Kentucky. The full vote result may be found here. (All six of the other Republican "Gang of 14" members voted for the amendment, as did, if my count is right, three "Gang of 14" Democrats.)

 

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton voted against the amendment. I say this is interesting because she recently introduced a bill of her own which would -- drum roll please -- outlaw flag burning! Clinton was accused of pandering to the right, since the Supreme Court has already ruled against that kind of law (hence the requirement to pass an amendment), and this vote on her part (an opportunity to show that she really does favor banning flag burning) would seem to support that accusation.

[Sisyphus]

Is it possible that so many are actually in favor of this thing? Or are they just afraid of what panderers and slanderers will do to them when they go up for reelection? Also, does anyone here actually agree with this amendment? I think it's completely absurd and nothing more than a particularly cheap political diversion, but I'm still curious to hear a justification for it.

[Pangloss]

Good question -- it does seem to point out the way politicians respond to polls. I can't quote any polls off the top of my head, but if memory serves, the vast majority of Americans support banning flag burning. Whether they support an amendment to stop it is another question (same deal with gay marriage) -- Americans typically show a lot of reluctance to amend the constitution. But politicians also know that they take a beating when they don't act on issues that are popular, and this is a popular issue with one (and only one) course of action available to them. So they act on it.

[ecoli]

Flag-burning is a stupid non-issue, and attempting to ammend the constitution for ban it is a misuse of the public office, in my opinion. As was said, this is just politicians wasting time to justify their paycheck.

[Jim]

Flag-burning is a stupid non-issue, and attempting to ammend the constitution for ban it is a misuse of the public office, in my opinion. As was said, this is just politicians wasting time to justify their paycheck.

 

I want to live in a country where people are free to burn the flag.

[KLB]

Okay I think I see a rare chance for agreement. I agree with what was said in posts numbers 2, 3, 4 & 5. Whoa is that weird or what.

 

Look I think the flag should be treated with respect because it represents our country and I think we should respect what the flag stands for. I do not believe, however, it is possible to legislate respect for something, nor should we create a constitutional amendment that limits the first amendment, which is the most important amendment of the constitution in my eyes. Furthermore we shouldn't be adding silly little petty issues to the constitution nor should we be writing anything into the constitution that limits peoples rights.

[scicop]

Okay I think I see a rare chance for agreement. I agree with what was said in posts numbers 2' date=' 3, 4 & 5. Whoa is that weird or what.

 

Look I think the flag should be treated with respect because it represents our country and I think we should respect what the flag stands for. I do not believe, however, it is possible to legislate respect for something, nor should we create a constitutional amendment that limits the first amendment, which is the most important amendment of the constitution in my eyes. Furthermore we shouldn't be adding silly little petty issues to the constitution nor should we be writing anything into the constitution that limits peoples rights.[/quote']

 

well said.

[swansont]

I want to live in a country where people are free to burn the flag.

 

I quite agree.

 

It's be nice if, in addition, they can't find a reason that would prompt them to do so.

 

But these probably have to be addressed separately.

[KLB]

What kind of poltical thread is this? There isn't one bit of disagreement best I can tell.

[Sisyphus]

What kind of poltical thread is this? There isn't one bit of disagreement best I can tell.

 

Which is extremely odd, if you consider the vote.

[KLB]

It just shows how out of touch congress is.

[Mokele]

Which is very ironic, considering how much of their actions are determined by polls and focus groups.

[Skye]

Ah, but has anyone looked into the risks associated with second-hand flag smoke?

[swansont]

Ah, but has anyone looked into the risks associated with second-hand flag smoke?

 

 

OK, I have to concede that I would endorse an anti-flag smoking amendment.

[JohnB]

Look I think the flag should be treated with respect because it represents our country and I think we should respect what the flag stands for.

To include a small amount of disagreement. To me, a flag doesn't represent a country, but the values and systems that the country was founded on. If you look at the development of the Stars and Bars it doesn't represent America but the values that causes to former colonies to create a Union.

 

Your Declaration of Independence put forward what you believed and the Stars and Bars showed how many believed it. Flags have meaning like Heraldry, they are a visible symbol of the history of a people.

 

In this respect I understand flag burners, they believe that the values the flag represents have been damaged or destroyed thus making the flag a worthless symbol devoid of meaning.

 

Having said that, while I may not agree with flag burners I must accept that in a democracy their right to protest peacefully should not be infringed.

 

As a sidenote, while preparing for a political event where three flags were to be used (The Australian, Queensland and Gold Coast City Council Flags) not one of the political staffers/organisers had the faintest idea in which order or which way round the flags should be hung.

[doG]

What a stupid waste of taxpayer time and money. I hope the Senators that voted for this amendment find themselves voted out....

[KLB]

Ah, but has anyone looked into the risks associated with second-hand flag smoke?

I couldn't quickly find a list of chemicals released when burning synthetic fabrics, however, I'm quite certain that it is worse than cigarette smoke. I know from my firefighting days they used to lecture us about all of the deadly chemicals in the smoke generated by a normal house fire. Eventually we just started calling all of the deadly chemicals we couldn't remember the names for "methyl ethyl death".

To include a small amount of disagreement. To me, a flag doesn't represent a country, but the values and systems that the country was founded on. If you look at the development of the Stars and Bars it doesn't represent America but the values that causes to former colonies to create a Union.

Agreed, this is just a more precise way of saying what I meant.

 

In this respect I understand flag burners, they believe that the values the flag represents have been damaged or destroyed thus making the flag a worthless symbol devoid of meaning.

Yes flag burning can mean exactly this especially when done in the country the flag belongs to. When the American flag is burned in foreign countries like the Middle East, I think the meaning is entirely different, but there is still a message.

 

Having said that, while I may not agree with flag burners I must accept that in a democracy their right to protest peacefully should not be infringed.

Absolutely; I'm really shocked that my Senators voted for the flag burning amendment. I think it is time to put together a rational and compelling letter explaining why there should be no flag burning amendment and ask that in the future the vote against one. Maybe we all need to do the same thing. I want people to reframe from burning our flag out of their own free will, not because they would be thrown in jail if they do.

[Pangloss]

Hehe, yeah it's nice to see a little (mostly) agreement on an issue. (grin)

 

I can understand why people are opposed to flag burning. It's an emotional issue. I think we can all empathize with people's emotional positions on this, right?

 

Perhaps it's another example of how people too-frequently respond to political issues more with hearts than with minds.

[swansont]

Hehe' date=' yeah it's nice to see a little (mostly) agreement on an issue. (grin)

 

I can understand [i']why[/i] people are opposed to flag burning. It's an emotional issue. I think we can all empathize with people's emotional positions on this, right?

 

Perhaps it's another example of how people too-frequently respond to political issues more with hearts than with minds.

 

 

I'm sure that the polling, telling the members of congress how to feel about all this, doesn't account for how badly the polls were written.

 

I'd wager "Do you oppose flag burning" is going to get a higher positive response than "Are you willing to lose a certain amount of your first-amendment rights because it bothers some people"

 

The same people who are against the right to burn the flag are probably going to get just as offended when protesters burn copies of the constitution instead, once they know it was the constitution that was burned.

[Pangloss]

An excellent point.

[silkworm]

This is sticky because the recommended way for getting rid of a flag that's no longer fit to fly is by burning it.

 

This is a very stupid nonissue. Most of the veterans I know find the concept of making flag burning illegal as offensive. Freedom is freedom, and rational people tend to be able to tell the difference.

 

This regimes moves for more leniency on law enforcement, attempts to legislate the bedroom, and limitations on freedom of speech, and now brewing action against freedom of the press should trouble even their most mindless of hack supporters.