Today I had the opportunity to speak with Rep. Steve Israel, of New York. He told me that he expects a Constitutional amendment to allow the burning of flag burning to pass overwhelmingly in the House, and by a few votes in the Senate. That sends it to the house. My question is not on the merit of the bill itself, but rather, WILL it pass in the states?
Are you sure it was meant to allow burning? That’s already allowed, I believe was the last ruling.
Why do we need this? Isn’t flag burning covered as freedom of speech?
Oops, I meant, to allow the banning of flag burning. Forgot to preview.
Ehh, don’t some conservatives wrap themselves up in this issue every year?
Oh man I re-reread my post and I might as well just repost it the way it was supposed to come out. corrections are underlined:
“Today I had the opportunity to speak with Rep. Steve Israel, of New York. He told me that he expects a Constitutional amendment to allow the banning of flag burning to pass overwhelmingly in the House, and by a few votes in the Senate. That sends it to the states. My question is not on the merit of the bill itself, but rather, WILL it pass in the states?”
God, I hope not.
In the olden days, constitutional amendments were used to do things like abolish slavery or give women the right to vote.
Now we have to have an amendment on something to give us LESS rights, in order that jingoistic people don’t get their feelings hurt.
This is so pathetic that it makes me want to cry.
Blalron I empathize but you didn’t answer my question.
It will probably pass in Congress, barring some miracle.
In the states? The amendment gives itself seven years to be ratified. So maybe there is hope that a grassroots movement will spring up in opposition.
If it passes, I guess people will have to start burning copies of the Constitution as a means of protest.
Or piss on replicas of the Statue of Liberty
Two comments:
-
Yes, if it passes Congress, it will damn sure pass the states. Only a simple majority is required in each statehouse. And state legislatures tend to have a higher . . . ah, how shall I say it . . . “yahoo quotient” than Congress.
-
After the amendment and subsequent implementing legislation pass, one can anticipate a significant increase in flag desecration, since the perpetrators will then be guaranteed arrest, trial, publicity, a platform, and “free speech martyr” credentials.
It would take 38 states to ratify it though.
That’s why (only some, remember) conservatives are against flag burning: they’re afraid for their safety.
jklann is right, a flag burning amendment doesn’t harm protesters, it arms them. They are most effective when the establishment overreacts to their antics. Throwing people in jail for making a political statement, even if it is burning the flag, is likely to be seen by folks in the middle as an overreaction.
Given that I wouldn’t expect strong opposition so yeah, I figure it could very well get ratified by 38 states.
I have a couple questions about the amendment. Is the text the same as before? And does anyone have a list of cosponsors in the Senate?
It would probably pass the houses of Congress because it is symbolic and has no real benefit to the people.
Meanwhile, the elderly in this country go without medicine they need because it is too expensive and Medicare doesn’t cover it.
So the flag stands for a country that would allow that to happen.
The irony.
Somehow, I can’t see this being defeated. I don’t think enough politicians have the cajones to stand up for principle.
I guess this will go down in history as the only ammendment other than 16 (allows the feds to collect income tax) that restricts a freedom of the people instead of restricting the power of the government. (if we assume that 21 repealing 18 essentially is a null). Bad, bad, bad. But almost worse than bad is stupid. It’s a stain on the constitution. I guess an ammendment about not eating fatty foods is next.
What I can’t wait for are the level-headed folks who will point out the stupidity of such an amendment – and then get shouted down as “anti-American traitors” by the teeming millions. :rolleyes:
I think the last couple of times the anti-flag-burning amendment went through Congress, it was also passed by the House and narrowly defeated by the Senate. I guess I always sort of assumed that there was a kind of “gentleman’s understanding” on Capitol Hill that this issue could safely be used to drum up flag-waving political capital for one’s party in the House, and then the amendment would be discreetly and sensibly killed by the Senate in committee later on. I recall calling up my state Senators here in Florida to find out their positions on such an amendment back in 2000, and they all seemed to have pretty much the same sort of response, that they would provisionally support such an amendment, depending on how it was worded. That’s about as safe a non-answer as they could give, I imagine.
I would also tend to agree that if the amendment were to sneak by both Houses of Congress, it’s pretty much a given that it would be ratified by the states, barring some sort of massive shift in political discourse within the next few years. This is not an issue that readily lends itself to reasoned discussions on the value of free expression, unfortunately. It would certainly be a tragedy were that to happen.