| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| House Approves Flag Burning Amendment; ...now on to the senate. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 22 2005, 12:34 PM (508 Views) | |
| The 89th Key | Jun 22 2005, 12:34 PM Post #1 |
|
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050622/D8ASREC00.html This is one piece of legislation I don't want to pass, but wouldn't mind if it did. Is that possible? :wacko: ...ok back to the job search.
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 22 2005, 12:38 PM Post #2 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Curious to know if it is possible for the Supreme Court to declare a Constitutional Amendment (once ratified by the States) as "unconstitutional". |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 22 2005, 12:40 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Fools rush in..... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 22 2005, 01:34 PM Post #4 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
It isn't possible. Of course, any text of the Constitution, including an amendment, is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. And, there can be arguments over whether an amendment was properly passed, and the Court would be the arbiter of that dispute. Despite what some here would say, though, I have little doubt that all nine of the current Supreme Court justices ... even those whose philosophy is totally at odds with my own ... would faithfully apply a new Constitutional amendment, given the enormous hurdles you have to clear to get an amendment passed. Moreover, any Supreme Court justice who attempted to declare a Constitutional Amendment as "unconstitutional" would find himself (or herself) quickly impeached. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jun 22 2005, 02:33 PM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The 16th amendment is unconstitutional. It was ratified illegally. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 22 2005, 04:11 PM Post #6 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Ever tried arguing that one before a judge? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 22 2005, 04:31 PM Post #7 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
We've had that discussion before, in the OCR. It's a myth, perpetrated by those opposed to the federal income tax. And yes, it's been litigated many (MANY) times. Amazingly enough, no one has yet found a judge willing to buy into the argument. Oh, and by the way, an amendment that wasn't ratified isn't unconstitutional. It just isn't an amendment (yet). The law passed based on that amendment might be unconstitutional, but the supposedly-unpassed-amendment is not. It's the Constitutional equivalent of the difference between a bill and a law. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jun 22 2005, 05:17 PM Post #8 |
|
Cheers
|
Well, i'd be unhappy to see it pass, but at least its gives the GOP something to focus on other than an anti-gay amendment. As much as I don't want to see the flag amendment, its better than staining our constitution with homophobic graffiti. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 22 2005, 05:19 PM Post #9 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
America is not about limiting free speech. Police state here we come. ![]() Hey, I know, let's legislate people's thoughts next.
|
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 22 2005, 07:16 PM Post #10 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Pandering the the far right. That's all this is. Get 2/3's of the Senate to ratify? Not a chance. Get 3/4's of the states to ratify? Not a chance. But the far right is likely going to see this as something of substance. If only they'd learn from experience who is making fools of them. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 22 2005, 07:19 PM Post #11 |
|
I disagree Rick, 2/3 of the senate has a VERY good chance this time around. 3/4 of the states isn't hard either...look at the red/blue state ratio fromt he election. I dunno...I think it has a really good chance this time....darn Republicans.
|
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jun 22 2005, 08:03 PM Post #12 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I will never understand how anyone can be *for* the income tax. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 22 2005, 08:09 PM Post #13 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Do the math, my friend. Even if you got all of the GOP in the Senate to support it, which you won't, you still need to get 12 Democrats -- 25% of the voting block. If you don't get all 55 GOP'ers, you need to pick up one Democrat for each GOP'er you lose. Then you get to the states..... It is one thing to say you need 3/4's of the states -- 37 of them. But keep in mind, what this means is you need to get 74 legislative houses to approve it (unless one is Nebraska-- which has a unicameral legislature, in which case it is only 73 houses. But these have to be by 2's in the proper states. Simply getting 73 does not work if one of those 73 is from a state where the other house does not approve it). In some of those states, a 2/3's vote is required of both houses. And in some of those states, the Governor has to sign it. And many state legislatures are part-time legislatures, some of which do not necessarily meet every year. Others can only coinsdier what the governor sends to them during a poriton of their session. And you will only have seven years. And during those seven years, there will be numerous general and special elections, including at least one Presidential election -- maybe two -- which can likely change the political landscape far beyond the red/blue of 2004. Ain't gonna happen. Issue oriented amendments pass the House very easily, mainly because many of the members see it as an easy vote because they know the amendment will never go anywhere and hence their vote is meaningless in terms of actually accomplishing something. Even if they oppose it they wilo vote yes because it looks good for the folks back home, and they never expect it to get into the Constitution so they don't worry about it. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 22 2005, 08:21 PM Post #14 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Don't they have anything better to do than to screw around with stuff like this? |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jun 22 2005, 08:28 PM Post #15 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Good question. Almost rhetorical. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| kentcouncil | Jun 22 2005, 08:37 PM Post #16 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
But... according to flag etiquette, the only proper way of disposing of a used or damaged American flag is to burn it.
|
|
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't. - P.G. Wodehouse | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 22 2005, 08:42 PM Post #17 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Steve, There are those who would argue that if they screw around with this sort of thing, they leave everything else alone -- which may not be a bad thing.
|
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jun 22 2005, 08:58 PM Post #18 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yes, watching someone burn the flag in protest is a little distressing to me but I cannot condone adding language to the constitution that will limit freedom of expression. The very same freedoms that many have fought and died for. They carry the flag into battle in defense of what it stands *for* not the piece of cloth itself. Is the American flag sacred to you or are the ideals for which it stands truly sacred? If you answered the later, then you must oppose this amendment. Why would a nation that consists of a majority of people who believe in a god that demands no other gods before him worship a piece of cloth? Why is a piece of cloth more sacred than freedom? What is up with the government always trying to take rights away from the people.
|
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 22 2005, 10:49 PM Post #19 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I think this is a false dichotomy: Flag as symbol vs freedom of speech (or the ideals). The flag is "sacred" in a secular sort of way -- it is an emblem of the freedom and the country that it represents. I also think that you overstate the case by calling it "worship" -- yet "reverence" is indeed an appropriate action. The piece of cloth (as if that's all it were) is not more "sacred" than freedom, but freedom is not without limits. Freedom also requires responsibility and accountability. The American version of freedom is not nihilistic hedonism (as much as some wish it to be). If our country ever did achieve that, we would soon be overtaken by a disciplined enemy. We obviously don't have unbridled freedom -- we must obey laws, pay our taxes, serve our country when called up, not engage in kiddie porn, not have more than one spouse simultaneously, not make plans to overthrow the government, etc. It is a sort of social contract -- and as such the terms of the contract are open to negotiation and amendment depending on how the populace and government best see fit to protect the overall common good. It seems a bit hysterical thinking that this portents a police state. Quite frankly, I breath a lot easier with the Janet Renos out of office -- those who actually oppressively used the power of the US government against its own citizenry -- than with the present regime. All that said, I think the amendment will have a short shelf life. I am not convinced it is a good idea, or all that necessary, but historical contingencies do have a way of shaping the polity for years to come. If we as a country think it is time to regroup and circle the wagons, then the amendment will have some legs. If we are fat and happy with the economic boom we are now in, then people will not be so interested in the idea of protecting the flag. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 23 2005, 03:05 AM Post #20 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Most of what you said, Thumperino, was quite reasonable. This, however, is silly. If you want to talk about using the power of the U.S. government against its own people, let's talk the Bush Administration, under the Patriot Act, asking libraries what patrons are reading. A survey of libraries this week reports that there have been several hundred requests, despite the Bush Administration's protestations that they hadn't ever used that power. Let's talk about arresting an American citizen, on American soil, not in the military, and then claiming that he has no civil rights and no right to trial by jury because we're in a war against terrorism. I don't think there's any reasonable way to say that the Janet Reno-led Justice Department oppressively used its power against American citizens more than the John Ashcroft-led Justice Department. It's pure fantasy. And with oil at $60 a barrel, I'm not so convinced about the "economic boom" you're talking about. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 23 2005, 05:15 AM Post #21 |
|
Didn't you read the article? They're only 2 votes away in the senate. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37. But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber. By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. Regarding the states, on would think the states would vote probably in the manner their senator voted. And over the seven years, if it takes that long...you are right about the conditions changing. What will happen? Who knows. But you do know that something like 10 out of the fastest 12 growing states are red states, right? That of course cant be bad for ratification with GOP states. This is kind of funny, because I hope this doesn't happen and I hope you are right....since I don't want this to pass anyway! |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 23 2005, 05:39 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
A couple of thoughts.... There are still a few Democrat Senators in the South. If they vote against this, there'll be a few less. And... Napoleon knew the value of a scrap of cloth, and a bit of metal. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jun 23 2005, 05:39 AM Post #23 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Some interesting thoughts regarding this topic: [Eugene Volokh, June 9, 2004 at 1:57pm] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks Anti-flagburning amendment, yet again: Last week, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution yet again endorsed (by a 5-4 vote) an anti-flagburning amendment. It's apparently coming to the full Committee in a few days. So, everything old being new again, I thought I'd repost my L.A. Times op-ed criticizing this proposal: "What's Wrong With the Flagburning Amendment" (published in slightly different form in the L.A. Times, July 18, 2001) "Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, and the flying of the Confederate flag." OK, so that's not exactly how the proposed flag protection amendment reads -- I've added the Confederate flag phrase. But this little thought experiment helps show that the flag protection amendment is a bad idea. After all, burning the U.S. flag and flying the Confederate flag are similar in many ways. Some people argue that flagburning shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment because it isn't "speech." Well, burning one flag and waving another are pretty similar on that score. I think both are traditional terms in our political language, and should be constitutionally protected; but if I'm wrong, then both should be unprotected. Of course, burning the U.S. flag deeply offends many people. But so does waving the Confederate flag, even when it's done by individuals and not by state governments. Many American boys died defending the U.S. flag -- and many of them died fighting against the Confederacy. Burning the U.S. flag is often an anti-American symbol. Likewise, the Confederate flag was a symbol of treason and rebellion against the lawful American government. It's true that many people see the Confederate flag as not just as a symbol of the Confederacy, and of a slave state rebellion prompted by the election of an anti-slavery President: They also see it as a symbol of other things, such as Southern pride. But likewise some people burn the U.S. flag not because they hate America, but only because they want to protest what they see as the American government's errors. Like most symbols, flagburning and flagwaving often mean subtly different things to different people. So one danger of the anti-flagburning amendment is the slippery slope. If the amendment is enacted, even without a clause for the Confederate flag, many people will be energized to try to ban other symbols that offend them. Think of it as "censorship envy" -- if my neighbor gets to ban symbols he dislikes, why shouldn't I get to do the same? This kind of misplaced desire for equality of repression is a powerful psychological force. Of course, it's likely that the slippery slope will be resisted here, and people will remain free to wave the Confederate flag. But America would be even more endangered by a selective ban on flagburning alone than by a broader ban: Such selective suppression will bitterly divide us, rather than uniting us. Right now, when people -- mostly blacks -- are deeply offended by what they see as a symbol of racism and slavery, the legal system can powerfully tell them: "Yes, you must endure this speech that you find so offensive, but others must endure offensive speech, too. Many Americans hate flagburning as much as you hate the Confederate flag, but the Constitution says we all have to live with being offended: We must fight the speech we hate through argument, not through suppression." But what would we say when flagburning is banned but other offensive symbols are allowed? "We in the majority get to suppress symbols we hate, but you in the minority don't"? "Our hatred of flagburning is reasonable but your hatred of the Confederate flag is unreasonable"? If you were black and saw the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery and racism -- and millions of blacks do, whether you agree with them or not -- would you be persuaded by these arguments? Would you feel better about America because of them? America is different from most other countries, and even from most other democracies. In America, all ideologies are protected, even those that the majority thinks are evil. Why is this right? Because the First Amendment was drafted and interpreted by people who intimately understood cultural, religious, and political conflict, and who knew how calls for censorship could launch the most bitter of culture wars. The Amendment is a truce: "I won't try to suppress your ideas, if you don't try to suppress mine." And the flagburning amendment risks shattering this truce. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jun 23 2005, 05:59 AM Post #24 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Excellent post JBryan! |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 23 2005, 06:53 AM Post #25 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Bush-Ashcroft Administration: Accused of doing library checks Clinton-Reno Administration: Accused of psychological and chemical warfare and murdering dozens of Americans (including children) at Ruby Rudge and Waco. I'll take my chances with the Patriot Act. As I said, I breathe easier -- you gonna argue with that? PS: I threw that Reno thing in to bait you, Quirt.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









5:00 PM Jul 10