Flag burning

[Ebowed]

The amendment just failed 66-34.

Wow, close one.  Anyone have a link to which senators voted Yea/Nay?

[Ebowed]

Hopefully we'll see more blue on that map next time around.

Please present an argument explaining why the flag protection amendment is both necessary and a fundamentally good idea.

[Ebowed]

Hopefully we'll see more blue on that map next time around.

Please present an argument explaining why the flag protection amendment is both necessary and a fundamentally good idea.

We have multiple threads on that already.  Feel free to check out the Individual Politics forum and the Political Debate forum.

Arguments in favor of banning flag burning never concern the two requests I asked to be addressed, but rather attempt to refute (badly) what is wrong with the opposition's argument and say that the amendment is therefore a good idea.  I've closely watched these flag burning threads and it's usually "You're going to argue with hundreds of federal and state law codes" or "This amendment only bans destructive actions, freedom of speech is not affected."

I have yet to see why it is necessary and, more importantly, a fundamentally good idea, other than that it's not an inherently bad one.  (Which it is, but let's not open that can of worms.)

[Ebowed]

The Supreme court (in a 5-4 decision) ruled that burning the flag is free speech.  (The fact that this is a flawed ruling has been debated to death so we'll just go on.)  In the attempt to correct this flawed ruling, Congress did their job by passing the Flag Protection Act in 1989, but was overturned in 1990 by the Supreme Court.  In order to re-establish our right to protect the flag, the only legal step left is to pass an amendment empowering Congress the power to re-establish the our laws regarding flag protection.  Regular legislation will not pass the Supreme Court (which is why the anti-amendment crowd keeps asking for legislation since they know it won't go anywhere).

This explains why you believe the amendment to be necessary, but not why Congress should have the power to prohibit flag burning in the first place.

It's a good idea since national flags represent the sovereignty of nations.  When foreign leaders visit another nation on official business, their flags are displayed side by side with the host nations.  No other image or symbol is displayed since the flag is the instantly recognized by the viewing public as a symbol of the citizens of the nation being represented by their leader.  Now while our government might not use the power provided under the amendment to protect all nations flags (I wish they would), they will use it to preserve the symbol which identifies our great nation as well as our caring and welcoming citizens.

Several problems with this: first of all, we also have many other national symbols.  While the flag is instantly recognizable as a representation of our national sovereignty, surely other national symbols are also worthy of this "protection."  Would you support a law to prohibit misuse of the rose, because it is America's national flower?  Second, how does burning a flag lead to a lack of preservation for the flag?  There are many ways to "desecrate" a flag (I'll humor the pro-amendment crowd and use the religious terminology associated with it); is anyone really going to reconsider the idea that America is a great nation with caring and welcoming citizens if someone burns a flag?  By limiting a freedom that the flag supposedly represents (that of protesting the government's actions), aren't we instead showing other countries that we are willing to amend our constitution for petty political manuevering?  I don't think that America cedes any bit of its sovereignty when someone sets fire to an American flag.  Regulating what people do with a flag design because we're not "preserving" it if we don't makes no sense.

[Ebowed]

Flag burning clearly is symbolic speech. 

So is cross burning.

The First Amendment protects cross burning as well as flag burning.

From my understanding, Virginia vs Black upheld that cross-burning was not protected under the First Amendment.

Do we need a Cross Protection Amendment too?

[Ebowed]

Do we need a Cross Protection Amendment too?

No, because the court realized that "freedom of speech" is not a blanket right in this case (a moment of clarity for them).  And like I said before, if the court wants to go back and repeal their flawed ruling, we won't need a Flag Protection Amendment either.

So if the Court reversed its ruling saying that cross burning is not free speech, a Cross Protection Amendment would be necessary?

[Ebowed]

I would support a Hate Speech Amendment.

Eww.

Also, this is a year old, but it's still relevant.  I was looking for info on Bennett's stance on flag burning and why he's always opposed the amendment.

http://bennett.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=240121

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ebowed]

And here's McConnell's take on it.  Another common sense view on the issue, naturally.  It's horrifying that 66 senators actually voted in favor of this amendment.

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=257826&start=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ebowed]

Unpatriotic:  Maybe, maybe not.  Maybe they are for once using their heads and ignoring partisanship to do what's right.

Do you find it a coincidence that this flag protection circus was brought up right after another attempt at banning gay marriage, which was near universally acknowledged as a ploy for Republicans to hold on to Congress this year?  If anyone was ignoring partisanship and using their heads, it was the Republicans who voted against.

[Ebowed]

They cleared committees earlier this year and scheduled to come to the floor on Flag Day since it was deemed a symbollic date.

Exactly my point.  It was scheduled to come to the floor when patriotism is high and when people will remember who voted against this amendment in November - in other words, yet another election ploy.

[Ebowed]

No, your point was that it was set to follow the gay marriage ban, and it was not an election year ploy.  If it had cleared committee last year, it would have been brought up on Flag day last year.  This amendment process has been going on for over a decade.

Please re-read what I said: "Do you find it a coincidence that this flag protection circus was brought up right after another attempt at banning gay marriage, which was near universally acknowledged as a ploy for Republicans to hold on to Congress this year?  If anyone was ignoring partisanship and using their heads, it was the Republicans who voted against."

In other words, I was saying that Republicans were using one election ploy after another.  Of course the flag burning amendment was scheduled to come up around Flag Day/July 4th.  It wasn't about the symbollism, though.

Given that it this amendment process has been going on for over a decade, as you state, why do you think they took so long for it to allow to be cleared in the committee?  Simple, 2006 is more convenient than 2005.

And yes, of course the amendment process has been going on for a decade.  It's a proven patriotism mustering tactic and it's always worked.