Text 1569, 71 rader
Skriven 2006-06-28 15:35:00 av Alan Hess
     Kommentar till en text av ROSS SAUER
Ärende: Latest GOP ploy bombs
=============================
Whilst masticating on <Jun 27 06>, ROSS SAUER (1:123/140)
wrote to ALL:

Missing by one vote isn't bombing.  The anti-freedom of speech bunch, which
includes some Democrats, is getting way too close to success.  It's ironic that
we went to war to remove a dictator who didn't allow freedom of speech
(including burning Iraq's flag), and so many idiot representatives and senators
want to amend the Constitution (which is what should be protected) to emulate
how dictators treat their flags.  They all should know better (as should all
the citizens who support this flag burning amendment idea.)  

RS> Of course, the do-nothing House and Senate GOP'ers will use this 
RS> non- issue for cheap political points.

That's the reason they keep bringing it up.  And they're doing something -
trying to pass this.  What they're doing is foolish, but it is something.

RS> Flag amendment apparently stalls in Senate By LAURIE KELLMAN, 
RS> Associated Press Writer

RS> Tue Jun 27, 6:08 PM ET

RS> A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration went to a vote 
RS> in the Senate Tuesday, apparently heading for an outcome just 
RS> short of the two- thirds needed to send it on to the states for 
RS> ratification.

RS> Republicans scheduled the vote exactly one week before 
RS> Independence Day and a little more than four months before voters 
RS> go to the polls to elect a new Congress.

Of course - perfect timing for their emotional ploy.

RS> Democrats put forth an alternate that also was getting a vote. 
RS> Sponsored by their party's assistant leader in the Senate, Dick 
RS> Durbin of Illinois, it included much of the proposed amendment's 
RS> language and would make it against the law to damage an American 
RS> flag on federal land if the intent was a breach of the peace or 
RS> intimidation of other people. It also would prohibit unapproved 
RS> demonstrations at military funerals.

This isn't much better.  A person who desires to burn his own flag (assuming
burning anything doesn't violate fire ordinances or other laws of the
jurisdiction) should certainly be able to do so on federal land, which is as
much his as anyone's.  It's already illegal to damage someone else's flag, just
as it is to damage someone else's property.

I hate those demonstrations by Phelps and his phools, but they have the right
to speak their piece.  There should be a way to keep them a certain distance
from the family and other mourners (if Bush can limit protesters to "free
speech zones" when he speaks, the same can be done with millitary funerals
without messing with the Constitution.)

RS> The proposed constitutional amendment fell four votes short of 
RS> the 67, or two-thirds majority needed, the last time the Senate 
RS> voted on it, in 2000. Both sides expected it to get more votes 
RS> Tuesday but not 67. The House approved the amendment by more than 
RS> a two-thirds majority, 286- 130, last June.

RS> If passed by the Senate, the proposed amendment would have to be 
RS> ratified by 38, or three-fourths, of the 50 states within the 
RS> next seven years before it would be added to the Constitution.

If it ever gets that far, hopefully the citizens of at least 13 states will be
smarter than the legisliars, and put this foolishness to bed for good.

What's next, after flag burning?  An amendment banning wearing the flag as, or
on, clothing?  Or getting a flag tattoo?  *adh*

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)