Flag-burning amendment. Again.

[Ysobelle]

So it's passed the House, and is headed for the Senate for the fifth time since 1989.


I'm still having trouble figuring out how reasonably intelligent lawmakers see such an infringement on free speech as a good idea. I also can't quite grasp how they think this is going to actually stop anyone from burning a flag if they're determined to do so-- a constitutional amendment does nothing but make flag-burning an even bigger statement. And as we mostly see flags being burning in the countries we've managed to piss off more than here, it baffles me how they feel this does anything more than, you'll excuse the phrase, add fuel to the fire. Such an amendment would make your average Iraqi millitant protestor-- if he even knew or cared in the first place-- even happier to burn the flag.


Then again, I don't get much about the current administration.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Of course, the legislature is so dense that they don't even see the irony in their desecrating the Constitution in order to prevent descecrating the flag. :roll:

What really galled me ws that during the debate, Rep Cunningham (R-CA) had the nerve to utter the following: "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: 'Pass this amendment.'".

Hmmm, lets see:

A) The little fucker is from California, so he really shouldn't be wrapping himself in the ashes of New Yorkers.

B) Those people are pretty unlikely to tell you much of anything right now, and at the time they were on top of the "Trade Center"[sic], I'm fairly certain that they had more pressing concerns on their mind.

C) Those people would probably rather their memory not be abused as a cynical political tool. But hey, why stop now, right?

D) There's a pretty good chance that they would feel that preventing a symbolic act like burning the flag should take a back seat to preventing more tangible acts like, say, flying aircraft into buildings.

And people wonder why public servants are held in such comtempt. :?

[Lady Laurel]

What really galled me ws that during the debate, Rep Cunningham (R-CA) had the nerve to utter the following: "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: 'Pass this amendment.'".

I have one word for you Dumbass

[Ysobelle]

<outrage> What the FUCK does the attack on the WTC have to do with the fucking FLAG amendment??? They weren't talking about the flag, they were probably screaming in terror, you dumb, opportunistic bastard! </outrage>


Wasn't it the Republicans who swore, "OUR President would NEVER use 9/11 for political gain!"


Sigh.

[RichardMacHugely]

B) Those people are pretty unlikely to tell you much of anything right now, and at the time they were on top of the "Trade Center"[sic], I'm fairly certain that they had more pressing concerns on their mind.

In fairness to the Dumbass, I think he meant the Fireman and Rescue workers who stood on top of the debris pile, of whom the very stirring picture was taken as they raised a flag over the wreckage.

Still a very very very bad idea though. Not only does this ammendment desecrate the flag much more than burning it ever could, it isn't even necessary. Seriously, has there been a rash of flag burnings out there that I have been missing?

[Lady Laurel]

Seriously, has there been a rash of flag burnings out there that I have been missing?

The only ones I have heard of is the local boy scouts that burn the old flags for the county.

[Ysobelle]

B) Those people are pretty unlikely to tell you much of anything right now, and at the time they were on top of the "Trade Center"[sic], I'm fairly certain that they had more pressing concerns on their mind.

In fairness to the Dumbass, I think he meant the Fireman and Rescue workers who stood on top of the debris pile, of whom the very stirring picture was taken as they raised a flag over the wreckage.

Still a very very very bad idea though. Not only does this ammendment desecrate the flag much more than burning it ever could, it isn't even necessary. Seriously, has there been a rash of flag burnings out there that I have been missing?


Blink.

You watch West Wing, don't you?


And no matter who he meant, I fail to see some direct correlation between the twin towers and burning the flag. If anything, an amendment makes that particular act of defiance even sweeter to those committing it.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Wasn't it the Republicans who swore, "OUR President would NEVER use 9/11 for political gain!"
Well, it wasn't the president, it was a congressman.

With politicians, it's always about the fine print. :)

[Ysobelle]

Wasn't it the Republicans who swore, "OUR President would NEVER use 9/11 for political gain!"
Well, it wasn't the president, it was a congressman.

With politicians, it's always about the fine print. :)

Oh, I know, but it was the party that gasped in horror at the thought that ANYONE would use 9/11 for political gains.


Snort.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

If anything, an amendment makes that particular act of defiance even sweeter to those committing it.
I guarantee you that in the unlikely event that this amendment is ratified, there will be many, many flags publicly burned as a matter of principle.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Wasn't it the Republicans who swore, "OUR President would NEVER use 9/11 for political gain!"
Well, it wasn't the president, it was a congressman.

With politicians, it's always about the fine print. :)

Oh, I know, but it was the party that gasped in horror at the thought that ANYONE would use 9/11 for political gains.


Snort.

I'm shocked, shocked to learn that there is hypocrisy in government! :rotfl:

[Ysobelle]

And Nikki's nose explodes in a cloud of cold tea.



I find the whole concept of being prohibited from a fairly physically innocuous act of protest quite anti-American. How ironic.

[Tapestry MacGillicuddly]

I've got an amendment to the amendment that I'd like to vote on... how about we burn them... have you seen the latest crap they are approving in the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court has ruled that cities may seize homes. WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.

The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Monday.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.

At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to continue their fight. Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."

New London once was a center for the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

[LadyRadar]

I'm just extremely disturbed by the fact that Congress isn't taking into account the fact that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech PROTECTED by the Constitution itself in the BIll of Rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Bill of Rights put in specifically so that we HAD the rights inherant in them? Therefore shouldn't it be wrong to amend the constitution to prohibit something that our Founding Fathers knew would be an important aspect of freedom?

I'll be damned if this administration and Congress isn't the most fucked up I've seen (or read about)