Flag Burning Poll

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I was somewhat surprised by current results on CNN on-line quick poll. I wondered how NazNet would compare....

Wilson

[Ann Smith]

If we didn't have so many activist judges, I would say no. However, we do, so we need it in the amendments.
Ann

[Gary Swartzlander]

An ammendment would have little or no impact. To the best of my knowledge there is no ammendment to the constitution which includes a penalty or a means for enforcement. Those are what laws and courts are for.

If someone can make a good argument as to how an amendment would help the situation I'll listen. We have much more important fish to fry than flag burning.

[Sara Sheppard]

As much as I hate flag burning, it is a person's right in this country to do so. Burning a flag doesn't cause harm to another human being or even to the person doing it. I don't think we should have a lot of amendments banning things like this.

I still hate it, but this is America...which I love...and if our freedoms extend to even somethings I don't personally like, I'd still rather have the freedoms than not.

Sara

[Bruce Carriker]

I'm with Gary. Is there an epidemic of flag burning out there that I'm missing somewhere? In fact, it happens so infrequently that Rick Monday is still a hero for stopping an incident that took place a quarter century ago, or more.

When it comes to flag etiquette, I'm far more offended by churches that fly the Christian flag RIGHT BELOW the American flag, than I am by the handful of idiots that feel the need to express themselves by burning the US flag.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

An ammendment would have little or no impact. To the best of my knowledge there is no ammendment to the constitution which includes a penalty or a means for enforcement. Those are what laws and courts are for.

If someone can make a good argument as to how an amendment would help the situation I'll listen. We have much more important fish to fry than flag burning.

The ammendment does not determine the specific laws or penalties, etc. It simply gives permission to make such laws.

The actual proposed ammendment is: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Such laws previously passed have been ruled unconstitutional. This would enable the laws to be re-formulated and then pass future constitutional tests.

Wilson

[Billy Cox]

I was somewhat surprised by current results on CNN on-line quick poll. I wondered how NazNet would compare....

Wilson

It is my impression that constitutional amendments aim to defend individual freedoms...not take them away. Except of course for the 18th amendment (prohibition) that we religious types worked so hard to pass.

[Ed Sherman]

Other than the Equal Rights Amendment, which was NOT passed, I can think of no issue in modern times worthy of tampering with the US Constitution.

The very idea of our dimwitted representatives in Washington attempting to tinker with such an enlightened document should strike fear in the heart of every freedom-loving person.

This living, breathing document is so far above the ham-handed, knee-jerking politicians of the day that any mention of its modification by such rabble is truly terrifying.

If we ever again elect representatives worthy of the title Statesman / Stateswoman, then perhaps the constitution can be reviewed/refined without fear that the very foundation of this great American experiment is in jeopardy.

[Bruce Carriker]

Well said, Ed. I agree with most of what you said, particularly the part about "ham-handed, knee jerking politicians of the day"...

I happen to oppose flag-burning. I am also opposed to gay marriage. But bringing these issues to the table 4 months before a general election, in the form of constitutional amendments that they know have NO CHANCE of passing the House or the Senate, is nothing more than an attempt of some far-right politicians, who are feeling vulnerable, to mobilize their core voters.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I happen to oppose flag-burning. .... , in the form of constitutional amendments that they know have NO CHANCE of passing the House or the Senate, ...

Actually, it has already passed in the House.

Wilson

[Bruce Carriker]

My bad, then. I guess I thought the House had more common sense than that.

Did they really get 2/3 of the House to vote for that?

[Barbara Moulton]

My bad, then.


Bruce...didn't know you were so hip! :-)

[Joel Merrill]

I'll add my name to those who hate flag burning. It makes me very angry. However, America is not the flag. The flag is just a symbol of this great land. Even if someone burned all the flags, America woud still be here. I think there are a great many things that are much more harmful to our freedoms than flag burning. I think the less congress messes with the constitution the better.

Joel

[Bruce Carriker]

Barbara,

I'm not "hip" at all. I just have two teenaged daughters, I spent most of the last five years going to school with people half my age. :)

[Sara Sheppard]

...

But bringing these issues to the table 4 months before a general election, in the form of constitutional amendments that they know have NO CHANCE of passing the House or the Senate, is nothing more than an attempt of some far-right politicians, who are feeling vulnerable, to mobilize their core voters.

Its funny that republicans would support this ammendment actually. There was once a time when republicans supported SMALLER GOVERNMENT. ha ha:rolleyes:
Sara

[Stan Hall]

Bruce, I hope you're sitting down. I fully agree with you.
I don't like flag burning, but a Constitutional amendment is way overkill. There are far more important issues our legislators need to be dealing with. This amendment is just a way for politicians to say "see, I'm patriotic!" in a way that doesn't require them to actually take a stand with substance.

[Bruce Carriker]

Stan, I hope you're sitting down...I fully expected you to agree with me on this one. You're not a knee-jerk conservative. You're an anarchist...sorry, I meant libertarian. You should be opposed to such an amendment.

I think people have the right to be offensive if they choose. At the same time, were you to punch a flag-burner in the nose and I found myself on the jury for your assault trial, there's no way I'd ever vote to convict you.

Being offensive may be your right, but it has consequences. If one of those is being punched in the nose, oh well.

Would you be guilty? Sure. Would I be wrong to vote not guilty? Under the law, absolutely. I think the legal term is "jury nullification", when the jury just does what it wants, regardless of the letter of the law. But that's exactly what I'd do.

[Andrew Henck]

This amendment just failed in the Senate today with a vote of 66-34.

[Bruce Carriker]

Yes, I was surprised it was that close. And I realized why I didn't know it had passed the House. It passed the House sometime last year. If it didn't happen last week, I've forgotten it already. :)

I honestly had forgotten that Congress convenes for two years, and that stuff passed by one house and ignored by the other doesn't die at the end of the year, like it does in most state governments.