Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: Harry Reid plans to vote for flag burning amendment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 08:08 AM
Original message
NYT: Harry Reid plans to vote for flag burning amendment
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/opinion/08thu2.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Published: June 8, 2006

Now that the Republican leaders in the Senate have finished wasting the nation's time over a constitutional ban on gay marriage, we're bracing for Act Two of the culture-war circus that the White House is staging to get out the right-wing vote this fall.

Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, plans to continue to set aside work on pressing issues facing the country to vote on yet another unworthy constitutional amendment — a prohibition on burning the American flag.

If the gay marriage amendment was a pathetic attempt to change the subject in an election year, the flag-burning proposal is simply ridiculous. At least there actually is a national debate about marriage, and many thousands of gay couples want to wed. Flag burning is an issue that exists only for the purpose of pandering to a tiny slice of voters. Supporters of the amendment cannot point to a single instance of anti-American flag burning in the last 30 years. The video images that the American Legion finds so offensive to veterans and other Americans are either of Vietnam-era vintage or from other countries.

<>The flag-burning amendment, on the other hand, actually could pass. A realistic nose count based on members' public statements and how they voted when the measure last came up, in 2000, suggests the Senate may be just a single vote short of punching a hole in free speech.

Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, should be rallying Democrats to join the small handful of principled Republicans so far willing to oppose the amendment. But as things stand, he is among the Democrats who plan to vote for this constitutional vandalism. Opponents of the amendment, like Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, are standing on firm ground in trying to protect the Bill of Rights from an election-year stunt.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. Reid and Clinton are voting for this
Do we know which other Dems are probably going to vote for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. When did Hillary Clinton say she was voting for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ToeBot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. When she decided to cosponsor the legislation... eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. NYT reports Clinton does not support an amendment re flag burning, altho
Edited on Thu Jun-08-06 08:59 AM by flpoljunkie
she does support other legislation. Clinton is a co-sponsor of the Flag Protection Act of 2005 with Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109Z0gTGo::

109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1911

To provide for the protection of the flag of the United States, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 24, 2005

Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for the protection of the flag of the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Flag Protection Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings- Congress finds that--
(1) the flag of the United States is a unique symbol of national unity and represents the values of liberty, justice, and equality that make this Nation an example of freedom unmatched throughout the world;
(2) the Bill of Rights is a guarantee of those freedoms and should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom, a course that is regularly resorted to by authoritarian governments which fear freedom and not by free and democratic nations;
(3) abuse of the flag of the United States causes more than pain and distress to the overwhelming majority of the American people and may amount to fighting words or a direct threat to the physical and emotional well-being of individuals at whom the threat is targeted; and
(4) destruction of the flag of the United States can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.
(b) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to provide the maximum protection against the use of the flag of the United States to promote violence while respecting the liberties that it symbolizes.

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST USE FOR PROMOTING VIOLENCE.

(a) In General- Section 700 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States

`(a) Definition of Flag of the United States- In this section, the term `flag of the United States' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, in any size, in a form that is commonly displayed as a flag and that would be taken to be a flag by the reasonable observer.
`(b) Actions Promoting Violence- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
`(c) Flag Burning - Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning , or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.
`(d) Damaging a Flag Belonging to the United States- Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag , shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
`(e) Damaging a Flag of Another on Federal Land- Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag , shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
`(f) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to indicate an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, or possession of the United States, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment - The chapter analysis for chapter 33 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 700 and inserting the following:
`700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States.'.
SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such a provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act, and the application of this Act to any other person or circumstance, shall not be affected by such holding.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. You know, I have never seen a real-life flag burning.
It's pretty rare. But I predict if they pass this and the amendment starts making the rounds for ratification, we will see flags a-burning like never before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
4. Grrr. This whole flag burning canard makes me furious.
Screw Reid and Clinton. About the only thing that could get me to burn a flag is this idiotic amendment. If either a federal anti-desecration law or a proposed amendment passes, someone should start manufacturing flags specifically for desecrating. They could be missing one stripe or one star, but otherwise be indistinguishable.

And thank goodness for Senator Leahy who clearly realizes how repellent this flag stuff is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-08-06 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. There must be more freedoms they can take by amendment also.
Let's see Freedom to marry whom you please and Freedom to show in very strong terms your dislike of how the Government is being managed. Freedom to assemble where you wish (Free Speech zones) Freedom to know what your government is doing in your name.(National Security) Why do they hate us for or freedoms anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC