I'll be the first one to burn my flag if this shameful and obviously politically motivated amendment passes. I will do so on the Boston Common in broad daylight. I'll call it the Boston Flag Party. Ya'll are invited. [img]smile.gif[/img] If they want to take anymore of my freedom they will have to come and get it.

*************************************************

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate began debate Monday on a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit the desecration of the American flag, the latest in a series of election-year votes pushed by the chamber's Republican leaders.

Observers give the flag amendment a better chance of passing than the one to ban same-sex marriages that was defeated earlier this month.

That was another vote aimed at mobilizing the GOP's conservative base before November's midterm elections.

A vote is expected this week, before the Fourth of July congressional recess.

Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, compared the measure to Supreme Court decisions banning so-called "fighting words," slander, libel, obscenity and pornography involving children. As such, he said, it has no "social value."

"Flag burning is a form of expression that is spiteful or vengeful," the five-term Pennsylvania Republican said during the debate. "It is designed to
hurt. It is not designed to persuade."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, argued that burning the American flag was precisely the kind of speech the First Amendment is meant to protect.

"The First Amendment never needs defending when it comes to popular speech," the six-term Vermont senator said. "It's when it comes to unpopular speech that it needs defending."

He called the efforts to pass the amendment "electioneering rallying cries" that struck at the heart of what the Constitution and the flag represent.

Continued at CNN

[ 06-27-2006, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Is there some sort of flag-burning epidemic overtaking the US that I am unaware of? Because this seems like a pretty trivial issue in the great scheme of things to me, and the fact that it seems like it's infringing free speech makes it even less appealing.

[ 06-27-2006, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: True_Moose ]

That's a pretty sad election trick, but also pretty funny from a 'crap government' point of view.

I'd love to see a list of how many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been/will be wasted on amending America's most sacred document to stop people from burning the flag. Is there really nothing more worthwhile that the most important people in the land can be doing with their time/your money?

Perhaps Tony Blair does have some influence on US government policy after all ;)

[ 06-27-2006, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

It's something that gets the conservatives up in arms everytime it comes to the floor, it will not succeed, and if it does it will immediately be challenged and struck down as unconstitutional.

Personally I think there are very few occasions when the flag should be burned, primarily when properly disposing of it after it becomes unservicable, however if this does go through I may very well join Chewie in burning the flag.

I'd also like to see a list of all the freaking times this has become an 'issue'.

I'm with you. I only contemplate such an act when this very issue rears it's ugly head. It ticks me off a little more everytime. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It should be noted that this is a proposed contitutional amendment, and in the unlikely event it passes, it couldn't be struck down by anything short of another contitutional amendment.

I don't know how far it'd get (notice it's only an issue in a campaign year :rolleyes: ), but if it gets anywhere, you're definitely talking about millions of dollars. The mechanism through which a Constitutional amendment has to go through to get passed is very long and arduous (as it definitely should be.) It's still easier than Canada's (where we've basically made Constitutional amendment impossible), but it's not at all a quick process.

I should add: I believe in only creating laws when a law prevents a victim's rights from being violated. Asides from some people's feelings being hurt, I don't see how burning a flag really harms anybody, other than making people look like jerks. There is a correct way to address these people: mock them and ignore their points of view. Exercise your right to free speech too. ;)

A question though: what is the proper way to dispose of a tattered/wrecked flag? I personally would think that setting it aflame is more dignified then throwing it out under my empty milk cartons...

Ceremoniously burning the flag is the proper dispoal method, at least according to my Scoutmaster 20 years ago.

Ah my flag and relative personal freedom is safe...for now.

Excerpt:

Senate Rejects Flag Desecration Amendment
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

1 hour 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.

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.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">While I find flag burning distastful it does allow people to vent anger that may otherwise be directed elsewhere. Like say burning buildings and property.</font>

[ 06-28-2006, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]