One of the few dems I actually like

[Ranger12 46]

and here is one of the reasons why:

Legionnaires Applaud Sen. Landrieu as Newest Cosponsor of Flag Amendment

INDIANAPOLIS, June 13, 2006  - 

A staunch supporter of America's veterans, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) received kudos today from the leader of the nation's largest veterans organization for announcing her cosponsorship of the flag amendment, Sen. Joint Res. 12, during an address to veterans at The American Legion Department of Louisiana state convention Saturday, June 9.

"On behalf of the 2.7 million wartime military veterans who are proud Legionnaires, I extend my sincerest thanks and congratulations on becoming a cosponsor of the amendment that will return the right of the American people to protect our flag", said Thomas L. Bock, national commander.

The measure is scheduled for a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate during the week of June 26. A two-thirds majority of 67 votes is required for passage to send the amendment back to the states where it must be ratified by 38 of the 50 in order to become the 28th amendment to the Constitution.

Every state has already passed resolutions calling on Congress to pass the measure and send it back for ratification. Many observers predict that with such a strong majority of the public, up to 80 percent in poll after poll favoring passage - the amendment would be the quickest in history to be ratified.

"We commend Sen. Landrieu for allowing the people to exercise their right to a redress of grievances through the amendment process", Bock said. "No other amendment has ever had such large support by the citizens of our nation. Our founding fathers would be proud to see the democratic process work exactly as it was designed to do."

The House of Representatives passed it in July 2005 for the sixth consecutive time.

The Supreme Court made flag desecration legal in 1989 when it overturned the laws of 48 states, and a hundred years of jurisprudence by ruling that the act of defiling the U.S. flag was speech.

The proposed flag amendment would not criminalize flag desecration; rather, it removes jurisdiction over the flag from the courts and gives it back to the people. With the amendment, Congress could re-establish flag protection laws. The measure is an enabling amendment that reads: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

A press conference in support of the flag amendment is slated for Flag Day, June 14 at Russell Senate Park in the nation's capital.

LINK

[TexasTiger 12,947]

and here is one of the reasons why:

Legionnaires Applaud Sen. Landrieu as Newest Cosponsor of Flag Amendment

INDIANAPOLIS, June 13, 2006  - 

A staunch supporter of America's veterans, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) received kudos today from the leader of the nation's largest veterans organization for announcing her cosponsorship of the flag amendment, Sen. Joint Res. 12, during an address to veterans at The American Legion Department of Louisiana state convention Saturday, June 9.

"On behalf of the 2.7 million wartime military veterans who are proud Legionnaires, I extend my sincerest thanks and congratulations on becoming a cosponsor of the amendment that will return the right of the American people to protect our flag", said Thomas L. Bock, national commander.

The measure is scheduled for a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate during the week of June 26. A two-thirds majority of 67 votes is required for passage to send the amendment back to the states where it must be ratified by 38 of the 50 in order to become the 28th amendment to the Constitution.

Every state has already passed resolutions calling on Congress to pass the measure and send it back for ratification. Many observers predict that with such a strong majority of the public, up to 80 percent in poll after poll favoring passage - the amendment would be the quickest in history to be ratified.

"We commend Sen. Landrieu for allowing the people to exercise their right to a redress of grievances through the amendment process", Bock said. "No other amendment has ever had such large support by the citizens of our nation. Our founding fathers would be proud to see the democratic process work exactly as it was designed to do."

The House of Representatives passed it in July 2005 for the sixth consecutive time.

The Supreme Court made flag desecration legal in 1989 when it overturned the laws of 48 states, and a hundred years of jurisprudence by ruling that the act of defiling the U.S. flag was speech.

The proposed flag amendment would not criminalize flag desecration; rather, it removes jurisdiction over the flag from the courts and gives it back to the people. With the amendment, Congress could re-establish flag protection laws. The measure is an enabling amendment that reads: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

A press conference in support of the flag amendment is slated for Flag Day, June 14 at Russell Senate Park in the nation's capital.

LINK

243485[/snapback]

What's it say about a country that has to amend its constitution to outlaw flag burning?

[Ranger12 46]

What's it say about a country that has to amend its constitution to outlaw flag burning?

243489[/snapback]

That we have some idiots that don't appreciate what the flag stands for. That is exactly what is says. This has been a long time coming and I remember debating this same thing in high school. You can't turn this into a dem or republican thing because these hippie scumbags find any reason to burn the flag, regardless of who is president.

[AURaptor 1,125]

What's it say about a country that has to amend its constitution to outlaw flag burning?

What's it say about some citizens who will try to use the burning of their nation's flag as a form of ' free speech ', when it's nothing of the sort ? I'm sorry, but who ever sold the idea that burning the flag is 'reasonable, legitimate' free speech expressing one's displeasure in the CURRENT Gov't , at which ever time, could sell sand to a Saudi. If you LOVE your country, but are upset at its current situation, you DON'T deface its recognized images.

[channonc 466]

Debating this issue on the floor is the biggest waste of time. The only reason this is even getting floor time is because the Rs are attempting to make this a campaign issue. This an attempt to paint anyone who might be against this as "not patriotic."

We have so many other important issues, I just can't believe this even worthy of our time right now.

[Captain Liger 0]

Apparently some people in this topic aren't as patriotic as others. I, for one, am for the amendment (big surprise, right?). I didn't go to Iraq and watch my buddies die and get banged up to come home and watch a bunch of America hating, pinko commie, panty waisted liberal rebels without a cause burn my flag for the sake of making a "statement." I'm pretty sure the majority of combat veterans, from any war, would agree.

You can't burn the flag of another country in America in protest. My God, why should you be allowed to burn your OWN flag??? Ludicrous. I'm all for free speech, differing points of view, yadda, yadda, yadda but THIS is crossing the line. If anyone wants to label me a "hater of free speech" because of my stand on this then that's fine. It's a label I'll proudly wear. Too much precious American blood has been spilt on our soil and on soil across both ponds defending Old Glory. You want to burn Her, go ahead. You just better hope I'm not in the vicinity.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

What's it say about a country that has to amend its constitution to outlaw flag burning?

243489[/snapback]

That we have some idiots that don't appreciate what the flag stands for. That is exactly what is says. This has been a long time coming and I remember debating this same thing in high school. You can't turn this into a dem or republican thing because these hippie scumbags find any reason to burn the flag, regardless of who is president.

243491[/snapback]

How many people have you personally witnessed burn a flag in your lifetime?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

You can't burn the flag of another country in America in protest.

243497[/snapback]

Where did you get this notion? Call the press to your house and throw the North Korean flag on the barbie. Not a damn thing the government can do about it.

[MDM4AU 332]

channonc, while you point fingers at the R's, there are D's that are in favor of this amendment as well. I agree that there are more important matters to be handled. But, that is how Congress works. 90% of those elected clowns act this way to grand stand for their political base. Nether side holds the patent on wasted time in Washington.

As for the burning of the flag, I think only scumbags would do such a thing. But, ironically, that flag is a symbol of the freedom that allows such ignorant people to do such a thing.

Finally, correct me if I am wrong, but was it not once illegal to burn the flag before a court ruling or something changed that? I thought I heard that last week.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Seeing someone burn a flag over the kinds of things they tend to burn them over makes me angry. I think most of the time they are a bunch of spoiled, ignorant brats.

That said, people have the right to be stupid and they have the right to express themselves in ways that may offend other people. Just as I wouldn't ban the Klan from having their Hundred Redneck Marches waving the US Flag and holding up crosses, I'm not for banning a form of expression, misguided as it may be most of the time.

[Captain Liger 0]

You can't burn the flag of another country in America in protest.

243497[/snapback]

Where did you get this notion? Call the press to your house and throw the North Korean flag on the barbie. Not a damn thing the government can do about it.

243503[/snapback]

I can't remember the exact year (1999? 2000? somewhere in there) but the TimesDaily out of Florence, AL ran a story about a group of protestors in Russellville, AL being arrested after they set a Mexican flag on fire. As far as I remember the group had obtained a permit to assemble and protest (they were protesting all the illegal immigrants there in their town) but only after they set a Mexican flag on fire did the police step in...and a couple of good 'ol boys were thrown in the county lockup. I don't know why, but after I read that story it has always stuck with me.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

You can't burn the flag of another country in America in protest.

243497[/snapback]

Where did you get this notion? Call the press to your house and throw the North Korean flag on the barbie. Not a damn thing the government can do about it.

243503[/snapback]

I can't remember the exact year (1999? 2000? somewhere in there) but the TimesDaily out of Florence, AL ran a story about a group of protestors in Russellville, AL being arrested after they set a Mexican flag on fire. As far as I remember the group had obtained a permit to assemble and protest (they were protesting all the illegal immigrants there in their town) but only after they set a Mexican flag on fire did the police step in...and a couple of good 'ol boys were thrown in the county lockup. I don't know why, but after I read that story it has always stuck with me.

243506[/snapback]

Well, if you burn the New York Times in most public places you are likely violating some law, but unless a burn ban is in place, you can burn it in your own BBQ-- or fireplace.

[Ranger12 46]

Debating this issue on the floor is the biggest waste of time.  The only reason this is even getting floor time is because the Rs are attempting to make this a campaign issue.    This an attempt to paint anyone who might be against this as "not patriotic."

We have so many other important issues, I just can't believe this even worthy of our time right now.

243495[/snapback]

Did you read the freakin' article? Here you are pointing fingers at republicans when the article is about a democrat who is one of it's biggest supporters.

Also, for you liberals trying to make this into a Bush thing and act like this does not happen under a democratic administration, sorry to see that you are that misguided and uneducated in your American History.

[channonc 466]

Debating this issue on the floor is the biggest waste of time.  The only reason this is even getting floor time is because the Rs are attempting to make this a campaign issue.    This an attempt to paint anyone who might be against this as "not patriotic."

We have so many other important issues, I just can't believe this even worthy of our time right now.

243495[/snapback]

Did you read the freakin' article? Here you are pointing fingers at republicans when the article is about a democrat who is one of it's biggest supporters.

Also, for you liberals trying to make this into a Bush thing and act like this does not happen under a democratic administration, sorry to see that you are that misguided and uneducated in your American History.

243509[/snapback]

You can bash my point of view all you want, but I do have insiders knowledge on what's going on. The way politics works in Washington, and the way it is portrayed by the media are 2 totally different thing.

By the way, out of the 9 Dems supporting the bill 3 of them are up for reelection.

I would like to point out that I never mentioned Bush in my response, I only blanketed Republicans, specifically I meant the Senate Republicans, since they are the ones currently debating the issue.

[CCTAU 3,327]

Debating this issue on the floor is the biggest waste of time.  The only reason this is even getting floor time is because the Rs are attempting to make this a campaign issue.    This an attempt to paint anyone who might be against this as "not patriotic."

We have so many other important issues, I just can't believe this even worthy of our time right now.

243495[/snapback]

Not true. If it didn't have any opposers, then there would be no wasted time debating this. Who exactly are the one's the republicans are debating with?

[Tigermike 3,035]

Either American citizens have the right to speak -- to express themselves, to associate -- or they don't. Campaign-finance reform is a liberal's way of stifling speech he or she doesn't like. And a ban on flag burning is a conservative's way of stifling speech he or she doesn't like. Either both restrictions of speech are OK, meaning the government can restrict speech when a majority of citizens or their legislators want that speech restricted, or neither one is OK.

[CCTAU 3,327]

Enough sorry bastages voted no to shoot it down. Only missed by one vote.

Senate rejects flag desecration amendment By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

It represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.

"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. And some Democrats complained that majority Republicans were exploiting people's patriotism for political advantage in the midterm elections.

"Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye (news, bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.

"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

Among possible presidential contenders in 2008, six voted yes: Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana and Republicans George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Frist, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and John McCain of Arizona. Five, all Democrats, voted no: Joseph Biden of Delaware,        Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin,        John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Senate also rejected an alternative put forward by assistant Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois. It would have made it against the law to damage the flag on federal land or with the intent of breaching the peace or intimidation. It also would have prohibited unapproved demonstrations at military funerals.

The last time the Senate considered the amendment, in 2000, it fell four votes short of what was needed. Both sides predicted rightly before Tuesday's vote that it would get more support.

The last proposed constitutional amendment that Congress sent to the states for ratification was the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. The normal seven-year deadline for state ratification was extended to 1982, but the ERA couldn't muster the approval of more than 35 state legislatures, three short of the three-fourths of states required under the Constitution.

The 26th Amendment, guaranteeing 18-year-olds the right to vote, was approved by Congress in March 1971 and was ratified by the states less than four months later.

The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, was first proposed in 1789. It says pay raises that Congress votes for itself can't take effect until after the next election for members of the House.

The House also got into the July Fourth spirit Tuesday by passing on a voice vote a measure that would bar condominium and homeowner associations from restricting how the flag can be displayed.

Sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (news, bio, voting record), R-Md., the resolution would prohibit those groups from preventing residents from displaying an American flag on their own property. The Senate is considering whether to bring up the measure this year.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Enough sorry bastages voted no to shoot it down. Only missed by one vote.

Senate rejects flag desecration amendment By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

It represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.

"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. And some Democrats complained that majority Republicans were exploiting people's patriotism for political advantage in the midterm elections.

"Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye (news, bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.

"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

Among possible presidential contenders in 2008, six voted yes: Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana and Republicans George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Frist, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and John McCain of Arizona. Five, all Democrats, voted no: Joseph Biden of Delaware,        Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin,        John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Senate also rejected an alternative put forward by assistant Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois. It would have made it against the law to damage the flag on federal land or with the intent of breaching the peace or intimidation. It also would have prohibited unapproved demonstrations at military funerals.

The last time the Senate considered the amendment, in 2000, it fell four votes short of what was needed. Both sides predicted rightly before Tuesday's vote that it would get more support.

The last proposed constitutional amendment that Congress sent to the states for ratification was the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. The normal seven-year deadline for state ratification was extended to 1982, but the ERA couldn't muster the approval of more than 35 state legislatures, three short of the three-fourths of states required under the Constitution.

The 26th Amendment, guaranteeing 18-year-olds the right to vote, was approved by Congress in March 1971 and was ratified by the states less than four months later.

The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, was first proposed in 1789. It says pay raises that Congress votes for itself can't take effect until after the next election for members of the House.

The House also got into the July Fourth spirit Tuesday by passing on a voice vote a measure that would bar condominium and homeowner associations from restricting how the flag can be displayed.

Sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (news, bio, voting record), R-Md., the resolution would prohibit those groups from preventing residents from displaying an American flag on their own property. The Senate is considering whether to bring up the measure this year.

243723[/snapback]

I don't know how the country has survived this long without this amendment.

[channonc 466]

I don't know how the country has survived this long without this amendment.

243731[/snapback]

My thoughts exactly.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Finally, correct me if I am wrong, but was it not once illegal to burn the flag before a court ruling or something changed that?  I thought I heard that last week.

243504[/snapback]

You are correct. The Supreme Court repealed the Flag Protection Act (Public Law 90-381) in 1990.

[MDM4AU 332]

Finally, correct me if I am wrong, but was it not once illegal to burn the flag before a court ruling or something changed that?  I thought I heard that last week.

243504[/snapback]

You are correct. The Supreme Court repealed the Flag Protection Act (Public Law 90-381) in 1990.

243776[/snapback]

Thanks, TIS. I had come to the conclusion that channon had used the ignore feature on me.

[CCTAU 3,327]

I don't know how the country has survived this long without this amendment.

243731[/snapback]

My thoughts exactly.

243738[/snapback]

For years I couldn't even defend my home from a criminal. Now that has changed. We are slowly spew librul drivel out of society. We will get this one too. You guys had your judges making rediculous rulings for too long. Now its come full circle. In the next few years, an amendment will pass. People are beginning to see that freedom of speech should not cover every sordid, nasty, evil thing a person does. And many of us believe tha burning the flag has nothing to do with free speech, but a yearnig to be deported, to anywhere but here. There is nothign that burning a flag says other than, "I hate this country."

[WinCrimson 61]

This is a property rights issue w/ me...

To me, it should be as legal to burn Old Glory as it is to burn a shower curtain. Yes, one is inherently stupid and disgraceful... but if it's your flag/property then you can do what you want with it IMO... even if it does pi$$ me off.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

This is a property rights issue w/ me...

To me, it should be as legal to burn Old Glory as it is to burn a shower curtain. Yes, one is inherently stupid and disgraceful... but if it's your flag/property then you can do what you want with it IMO... even if it does pi$$ me off.

243885[/snapback]

I'm with you. I don't think it's necessary and there are at least a dozen other things Congress could be making better use of their time tackling than this. It's a symbol, not the reality itself. Frankly I'd be offended greater if someone burned a Bible, but I'm not advocating for a law against it. There's nothing in the Consitution preventing people from being ungrateful, self-absorbed, misguided or stupid.

[Captain Liger 0]

So all of you that are against the burn ban or just don't care period, do you likewise feel that a person should not be arrested for taking a piss on the Lincoln Memorial, Arlington National Cemetary, the Vietnam Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, etc, etc? I mean, if I get a permit to demonstrate, by your reasoning, I should be able to defecate on and/or desecrate any of these national symbols without fear of reprisal. I mean, it's just a "symbol." All I want to do is make a "statement." And don't throw up property rights in my face because my tax dollars are used each year to maintain these monuments so in all actuality, the national symbols are partially mine.

Now that I think about it, I believe I'll go to DC during the Fourth and ask to see the Declaration of Independence up close and personal so I can wipe my ass with it right after I take a dump on the WWII memorial. We'll see how you feel then...unless you just don't care about those either which you probably shouldn't unless you want to be labeled a hypocrite.