In a few days the House of Representatives will overwhelmingly approve, for the sixth time, a Constitutional Amendment to allow Congress to make it a crime to deface the American flag.
In three previous votes, the Senate could not muster the two-thirds majority needed to send the bill to the states for ratification. In 2000, the last time the Senate took up the matter, 63 voted for the amendment, four short of a two-thirds majority. Since then Republicans have picked up five Senate seats. That is why USA Today describes the upcoming vote, scheduled sometime after July 4, as a "cliffhanger."
If Congress passes the amendment, will the states ratify it? Time will tell. But we should recall that every state legislature has passed resolutions urging Congress to send it such an amendment.
Once the amendment becomes the new constitution, the courts won't be able to do jack shit. Flag burning typically evokes strong emotional reactions in the American conservative public. The amendment will have public support. The only way to stop it is if concerned non-conservatives stand up just as strongly for every American's right to free speech.
I wrote this e-mail to my two senators:
Quote:
Dear Senator _______,
In the next few weeks, there is a strong possibility that the Senate will vote on a constitutional amendment that, if approved, will allow the federal congress and state legislatures to limit the First Amendment and pass laws prohibiting the desecration of American flags.
I swear an oath, and God is my witness, that my vote in the next election will go to the strongest opponent of any congressperson, Democrat or Republican, who votes for this desecration of the Bill of Rights.
I hope others will hunt down their Senators in this list and write similar sentiments. It takes only a few minutes.
The American flag is a symbol, and one of the most important things that symbol stands for is freedom. Among those freedoms it stands for is freedom of expression, the freedom to speak one's mind, the freedom to criticize the government. The flag itself is not that freedom. The flag itself is a piece of cloth.
To pass a constitutional ammendment banning flag burning is to protect the symbol by destroying the very thing for which that symbol stands.
Please don't destroy The substance of American ideals in the name of "patriotism." I want my country back.
Edit; I probably should have added, "and I'm prepared to vote to take it back." to that last sentence.
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
I hope they've clarified the language about proper disposal of old, torn, tattered or stained flags. 'Cause the last I hear, the proper means of disposing of such was to burn them. That was the Boy Scouts, the little brownshirts of the patriotic religious bigot homefront.
What a bunch of crap to have our elected representatives spending their time on...
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from taking action on this, but I'm not worried. I don't think the expanded Republican majority in the Senate will mean they can get 67 votes; the Republicans are fractured badly there already, and the divisions are spreading. Most importantly, the public already has a very poor opinion of Congress, specifically already feeling that they're wasting their time on irrelevancies and avoiding essential business, and 63%, the highest majority since regular polling on the question started, are against it. Senators will have no problem declining even to bring this up for a vote.
Some people feel that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to make it illegal to burn or desecrate the American flag as a form of political dissent. Others say that the U.S. Constitution should not be amended to specifically prohibit flag burning or desecration. Do you think the U.S. Constitution should or should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag?
63% said, "Should not," but the question seems a bit slanted.
The next question for those who answered "should" says,
Quote:
[If 'should':] If an amendment prohibiting burning or desecrating the flag were approved, it would be the first time any of the freedoms in the First Amendment have been amended in over 200 years. Knowing this, would you still support an amendment to prohibit burning or desecrating the flag?
"86%" said yes, and I figure the result ought to be close to 100%. The first part of that question seems ridiculously slanted.
The Citizens Flag Alliance sponsored a survey that had opposite results, but the questions seem a bit more neutral.
Quote:
Do you favor or oppose the passage of a Constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to enact laws to protect the U.S. Flag?
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
I'm all for supporting our symbols, but isn't there something better than can be spending their time on then? I guess pacification of the moronic car flag masses is a worthy political goal.
My question is, what is a "flag" is it specifically the cloth thing meant to be run up a pole or is it the red white and blue (blue white and red is better) symbol? I would assume it's the cloth thing, but it would be nice to know for sure.
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
I'm all for supporting our symbols, but isn't there something better than can be spending their time on then? I guess pacification of the moronic car flag masses is a worthy political goal.
My question is, what is a "flag" is it specifically the cloth thing meant to be run up a pole or is it the red white and blue (blue white and red is better) symbol? I would assume it's the cloth thing, but it would be nice to know for sure.
Q: Exactly what is a flag? A: That simple question has caused more controversy about a pretty simple topic than almost any other. The Congress, which rarely agrees on anything, agreed in 1989 that the term "flag of the United States means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed." That makes it pretty clear that we aren't talking about ties with flags on them or birthday cakes with Stars and Stripes icing. Additionally, we have 100 years of legal precedent where the courts exercised common sense to adjudicate flag desecration cases. This really is a non-issue.
It doesn't get much more flimflammish than that. The wording makes it clear to the rest of us that a "flag" can include just about anything including flag birthday cakes.
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
•Any substance
•any size
•commonly displayed
What do they mean it can't be a birthday cake with stars and stripes icing? It is displayed and thus fits the three criteria. Hmm, if this law passes it means you can't let the flame of the candles touch a flag birthday cake.
I wonder if there are any waste watcher groups who are calculating just how much money the tax payers are paying for them to decide on this very important issue.
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
Flag burning is such a huge problem you can't drive down a street in America without seeing some juvenile delinquent or communist freedom-haters burning one, it's a travesty. We must do something about the rampant torching of the very essence of America, if nothing else it's a fire hazard and that's reason enough.[/redneck Patriot]
IIRC, the last time we had a negative Amendment (one that withheld a right instead of protecting one) it got repealed (Prohibition). I can't even begin to state how stupid I think this whole thing is. When Sen. Orrin Hatch first brought the Amendment, I wrote him a scathing letter. I got a personal reply letter which basically thanked me for writing and said we'd have to agree to disagree. Supporters of this are freedom-hating motherfuckers.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
Some people feel that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to make it illegal to burn or desecrate the American flag as a form of political dissent. Others say that the U.S. Constitution should not be amended to specifically prohibit flag burning or desecration. Do you think the U.S. Constitution should or should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag?
63% said, "Should not," but the question seems a bit slanted.
Can you say how it seems slanted to you? It seems pretty neutral and evenhanded to me.
Quote:
The next question for those who answered "should" says,
Quote:
[If 'should':] If an amendment prohibiting burning or desecrating the flag were approved, it would be the first time any of the freedoms in the First Amendment have been amended in over 200 years. Knowing this, would you still support an amendment to prohibit burning or desecrating the flag?
"86%" said yes, and I figure the result ought to be close to 100%. The first part of that question seems ridiculously slanted.
I think the question is deliberately slanted. The group conducting the survey appears to be a group that opposes this and similar amendments, so it seems to me that they're measuring the extent to which a successful public education campaign (propaganda, whatever you want to call it) might bump the numbers in their favor.
Quote:
The Citizens Flag Alliance sponsored a survey that had opposite results, but the questions seem a bit more neutral.
Quote:
Do you favor or oppose the passage of a Constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to enact laws to protect the U.S. Flag?
Honestly, I don't see the point of comparing one question to the other. Maybe the first one could be phrased better, but this one doesn't even bring up the question of flag-burning or desecration. Everyone's going to be in favor of doing something positive like "protect," except the people who recognize it as code words and disagree.
In any case, I'm pretty sure I can name more than 5 Republicans who wouldn't support this: usual suspects like Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chafee, those two lovely women from Maine Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, McCain, Arlen Specter ... pressed I could probably come up with more, to offset any pansy cover-their-asses Democrats.
eta: And those other two, usual suspect Richard Lugar and the one from Ohio who's been showing some backbone lately, Voinovich. I could be wrong, obviously one would have to check each to make sure, but I'd bet good money that at least six of them would cross over, and it's a sufficiently trivial issue I think the Democrats would keep up their recent unity thing.
Some people feel that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to make it illegal to burn or desecrate the American flag as a form of political dissent. Others say that the U.S. Constitution should not be amended to specifically prohibit flag burning or desecration. Do you think the U.S. Constitution should or should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag?
63% said, "Should not," but the question seems a bit slanted.
Can you say how it seems slanted to you? It seems pretty neutral and evenhanded to me.
Sure, Blake. For one thing, the first question includes a brief phrase of justification on the part of flag burners ("a form of political dissent"), but there is no phrase of justification on the part of the other side, who come off looking like Nazis in the second sentance. Also, the third sentance is slanted because nobody is proposing to amend the constitution to specifically prohibit flag burning and desecrations. Instead, it is an amendment to allow congress and states to pass laws to that end.
You have a good point about the CFA survey using the phrase "protect the U.S. flag" without specifics, but I still think it is more neutral and their numbers are more trustworthy than the aforementioned survey.
And I think you and Abdul Alhazred are going to be proven wrong about the willingness of congress to pass this amendment. As Alternet points out, the vote came only four votes short in 2000.
Abdul, I know it isn't really fascism, but the word has the proper connotations.
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
And I think you and Abdul Alhazred are going to be proven wrong about the willingness of congress to pass this amendment.
2/3 of the senate.
Let's see. All of the Republicans (except Ron Paul) and 1/3 of the Democrats.
And 3/4 of the state legislatures? Don't forget that part.
Never.
In 2000, the amendment lost by 4 votes, and this was before the flag-mania of 9/11. If today's House vote offered any clues, the Republicans are united for it, but Democrats are not united against it. Only 12 out of 209 Republicans voted NAY. And 77 out of 117 Democrats voted YEA, including my own representative, whose opponent in the next election will get my vote. The Senate is a bit more sharing of my view. Thankfully, both my senators will be voting NAY. But other Democrats are more concerned with elections than freedom.
The 3/4 of the state legislatures may be the easiest part. 49 out of 50 states have already sent in non-legal resolutions to the federal congress in support of it (cnn.con). I am not sure how big the "yea" ratio must be for each state, but I figure it is a simple majority for most of them.
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
And I think you and Abdul Alhazred are going to be proven wrong about the willingness of congress to pass this amendment.
2/3 of the senate.
Let's see. All of the Republicans (except Ron Paul) and 1/3 of the Democrats.
And 3/4 of the state legislatures? Don't forget that part.
Never.
In 2000, the amendment lost by 4 votes, and this was before the flag-mania of 9/11. If today's House vote offered any clues, the Republicans are united for it, but Democrats are not united against it. Only 12 out of 209 Republicans voted NAY. And 77 out of 117 Democrats voted YEA, including my own representative, whose opponent in the next election will get my vote. The Senate is a bit more sharing of my view. Thankfully, both my senators will be voting NAY. But other Democrats are more concerned with elections than freedom.
The 3/4 of the state legislatures may be the easiest part. 49 out of 50 states have already sent in non-legal resolutions to the federal congress in support of it (cnn.con). I am not sure how big the "yea" ratio must be for each state, but I figure it is a simple majority for most of them.
For reference, here's the section of the U.S. Constitution that applies:
So... It's clear about what level of support it needs within the houses of Congress, but it does not say what level of approval is required of either ratifications by state legislatures (simple majority or supermajority?), or state conventions.
As for the Democrats voting for it, I'd guess that sufficient numbers did so knowing that there were enough votes to kill the measure. I'd also suspect that if there were no such assurance that a number of them would switch. The same with Republicans.
Also, if three-quarters of the states is all that's required to call a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution, and 98% of the state legislatures have voted to support an anti-flagburning amendment, why has there been no convention to so amend the constitution? Is it because those votes of support did not have the validity of a call for convention? Does that mean that there may have been simple majority that wanted such, but not a supermajority that may, or may not, have been required to issue such a call?
Also, just because each state legislature has gone on record, in the past, supporting such, does not mean that support will actually be there when open public discussion of such a measure is present. There was probably a lot of posturing there, as well.
Posturing works both sides of the aisle.
__________________
Last edited by godfry n. glad; 06-23-2005 at 06:42 PM.
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
Godfry, I don't have the politically-savvy mind to state with any confidence about whether or not all those politicians were merely posturing, but I certainly would not count on it. Read the AP's assessment.
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
Godfry, I don't have the politically-savvy mind to state with any confidence about whether or not all those politicians were merely posturing, but I certainly would not count on it. Read the AP's assessment.
First, I did not say "all"...I wrote that, "I'd guess that sufficient numbers did so."
Secondly, I did not state it with any confidence whatsoever. It is a conjecture. The process, however, occurs with great regularity at all levels of American politics. There is no reason to believe that it would not exist on such a silly-assed proposition.
In my eyes, this all smacks of convenient wrapping of themselves in the flag and unwarrented patriotic fervor while ignoring far more important public business.
Throw the bums out!
Dognamed sleazy politicians.
__________________
Last edited by godfry n. glad; 06-23-2005 at 06:38 PM.
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
Godfry, if the Senate rejects this amendment by more than one vote, then I will gain a lot of respect for you, Blake, and Abdul. Otherwise, I'll believe that your opinions are influenced too much by wishful thinking, as I already suspect.
Re: Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
The key issue is desecration. A Constitutional amendment with the right wording would elevate the flag to the status of sacred object. It's already the object of enough quasi-religious ritual.
Also, a Constitutional amendment will, I believe, result in protest-by-flag-burning, thus making the law a self-fulfilling prophecy, giving the government an excuse to crack down on dissent. We'll have completed the next steps in becoming a third-world country. Well, we're already there, but this would add another festoon to the uniform.
It is deceptively non-specific about what power the Congress will have, nor does it restrict that power. It does not define "physical desecration", or, exactly, what is "the flag of the United States." It does use the term "desecration", but that means either
1 : to violate the sanctity of : PROFANE
or
2 : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously
Conceivably, under the proposed amendment, because the terms are not defined, a protestor could be prosecuted just for carrying the flag in a protest march, because they're being disrespectful.
Underneath this particular amendment is the idea of behaving the right way, with "right" defined at the whim of the government. The incredible danger of this amendment is that it opens the door for Congress to write whatever crazy laws they want to write restricting the rights of the people regarding any flag of the United States. Imagine the riders and amendments to any such bill that travels through Congress...what starts out as a law prohibiting physical descration of "the flag" could end up prohibiting anydamnthing. But, the key value of bills in Congress lies in their use as leverage for power. "Don't like my flag bill? What's it worth to you for me to revise the language? Tell you what, gimme $2 million of those highway funds and support me on getting that appropriation for my arms bill and I'll play it your way." Or, the opposite: "So, you want my support on your flag bill? You're on the Ways and Means committee...push for me a bit and I'll push for you."
Yeah, we'll see flag-burning defined as a "terrorist act". Next hippie who burns a flag gonna end up at Gitmo. Praise Jesus.
Congress to amend constitution in favor of flag fascism
Linear Mode
