House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment

[BloodyPepperoni]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure rejected twice by the Senate in the past decade but expected to get a closer vote this year.

By a 286-130 vote - eight more than needed - House members approved the amendment by the required two-thirds majority after a debate over whether such a ban would run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.

If approved by a similar two-thirds majority in the Senate, the amendment would then move to the states for ratification. It would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 state legislatures to become the 28th amendment to the Constitution.

Sixty-three senators, four short of two-thirds needed, voted for the amendment in 1995 and again in 2000. With Republicans increasing their majority in last fall's election, activists on both sides of the issue said the amendment has its pass chance ever of passing this year. But a rough count by The Associated Press shows 34 - one more than needed to defeat it - either as having voted against the amendment in the past or committed publicly to opposing it.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.

Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed.

But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.

By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.

The amendment is H.J. Res 10

Source

Do you support such a law? I understand that the view of an American flag burning may be quite offensive, but how do we draw the line between what's offensive enough in matters of symbols to be banned and what is not? For example (in the United States) you could waive a Nazi flag freely, but you're an outlaw if you burn an American flag. Why?

Edit : could a mod correct the typo in the poll title ( should be - instead of =)

 

[The Last Conformist]

Considering that here it's illegal to let the flag touch the ground, that seems pretty mild ...

That said, it will do no good.

 

[Mungaf]

Please. The constitution should only be amended in the case of very important changes/solidifications of people's rights or for non-constitutional laws/customs that are so widespread and founded in the legal system that they should be protected. Flag burning amendments are none of these, as well as being in direct violation of the first amendment. The constitution would be like the Bible, full of contradictions.

 

[Renata]

Here's my offer. I'll give up flag burning as a form of protected speech if you (mostly Republicans, but also a fair share of Democrats) give up corporate campaign contributions as a form of protected speech. Deal?

I didn't think so.

Edit: I should probably add that I think that flag-burning is terribly childish, not to mention backwards. If I were the sort to run around protesting the government by waving signs on street corners, I'd do it wrapped in the flag -- it's the government perverting what the flag should stand for, not the other way around.

Renata

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Foreigners probably don't understand this, but the Constitution in the United States is considered somewhat of a sacred document, and many of us consider it above mere policy. That's why a lot of people who oppose gay marriage (such as myself) opposed the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- it's just not the level of stuff that the constitution deals with.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Foreigners probably don't understand this, but the Constitution in the United States is considered somewhat of a sacred document, and many of us consider it above mere policy.

We understand that it is so. What leaves us mystified is why it is so.

 

[Mungaf]

We understand that it is so. What leaves us mystified is why it is so.

You're probably right. The United States owes it's tradition of stability and individual rights to its legal inheritance from England, its high living standards, and ample resources much more from any document like the constitution.

What it DOES do, however, is protect basic rights, as in the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments, for the record) and keep them completely open from government interference "for the greater good" or for other reasons. This is why the flag burning amendment is a ridiculous idea.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Sorry, I'm not voting - because it's very much American holy ground. I feel I have no input to make on it at all.

A bit like abortion - I feel, as a man, it's outside of my jurisdiction or indeed comprehension.

I will make no further posts on this thread - I try not to stick my nose into other people's business.

 

[FriendlyFire]

But the burning of other flags are perfectly legal and acceptable ???
What about burning of crosses ???
Or mass burning of books ???

It dosnt seems like the admendment was fully thought though.

 

[GenMarshall]

I do support the admendment to ban flag-burning within the US.

 

[Yom]

What the hell? That is absolutely ridiculous. If it gets close to passing, then I'll go to the nearest protest with a large American flag and burn it.

I do support the admendment to ban flag-burning within the US.

WHY?!?!

 

[Shadylookin]

I don't support it because 1 it violates the first amendment and 2 it doesn't set any parameters.

leaving a flag outside at night without proper lighting is considered desecration by some. and what is there punishment going to be? treason, because you couldn't take your flag down because you were away while it was raining(another arbitrary rule you are not supposed to do with an american flag). if you just say no burning the US flag, then you take away the only proper way to retire a flag(again another arbitrary rule)

 

[bad_ronald]

I voted no. There is no reason to ban flag burning.

 

[eyrei]

Apparently the House of Representatives does this on a regular basis, and the Senate votes against it. Of course, this is a pretty different senate than we are used to, so it just might make it to the states for ratification.

At any rate, I wish our government would spend more time on more important things like actually running the country, but that is apparently too much to ask. Seems fostering nationalism is far more important.

 

[amadeus]

I say we expel the people that do it. By burning the American flag, they are demonstrating they are not productive members of this society.

 

[luiz]

That ammendment would be ridiculous. I always considered the fact that one can burn the american flag in the US as a very positive trait of that nation.

 

[eyrei]

I say we expel the people that do it. By burning the American flag, they are demonstrating they are not productive members of this society.

Give me a break. One of the basic concepts of democracy is that people must be free to criticize their government. Burning a flag is one of the most demonstrative methods of showing one's disapproval.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

A flag is more than a piece of cloth, it is a symbol. You burn the American flag, you burn in effigy the American people, Constitution, and everything that is or was American. It is a spit in the collective face of every American who ever lived and ever shall live. What I find most disturbing about the ammendment is that my country has gotten to the point that Congress has to pass such an ammendment at all. It should be common sense to every American citizen that it is stupid to burn your own flag and doing so should be considered treason.

 

[Yom]

I say we expel the people that do it. By burning the American flag, they are demonstrating they are not productive members of this society.

Who decides that? Why is burning the flag unproductive? What if you're suffering from hypothermia and the only flammable material around you is an American flag? What if you burn the flag simply because of a statement that you wish to make? To prevent such an action is abriding one's right to free speech. I believe that the country would be better off without conservatives such as yourself, but would it be right to say that you should be expelled for expressing conservative views, as that shows that you are not productive members of the American society?

 

[Yom]

A flag is more than a piece of cloth, it is a symbol. You burn the American flag, you burn in effigy the American people, Constitution, and everything that is or was American. It is a spit in the collective face of every American who ever lived and ever shall live. What I find most disturbing about the ammendment is that my country has gotten to the point that Congress has to pass such an ammendment at all. It should be common sense to every American citizen that it is stupid to burn your own flag and doing so should be considered treason.

Firstly, not all see it as such a bad thing, so your statement is only correct as a personal effect as to what burning the flag means to you. Secondly, shouldn't people have the right to express that view? If you do not like society today, then why cannot you express that view?