Flag-burning amendment fails by a vote

[XtremeJibber2001]

Flag-burning amendment fails by a vote

Wednesday, June 28, 2006; Posted: 8:56 a.m. EDT (12:56 GMT)

NO VOTES

Akaka, D-Hawaii
Bennett, R-Utah
Biden, D-Delaware
Bingaman, D-New Mexico
Boxer, D-California
Byrd, D-West Virginia
Cantwell, D-Washington
Carper, D-Delaware
Chafee, R-Rhode Island
Clinton, D-New York
Conrad, D-North Dakota
Dodd, D-Connecticut
Dorgan, D-North Dakota
Durbin, D-Illinois
Feingold, D-Wisconsin
Harkin, D-Iowa
Inouye, D-Hawaii
Jeffords, I-Vermont
Kennedy, D-Massachusetts
Kerry, D-Massachusetts
Kohl, D-Wisconsin
Lautenberg, D-New Jersey
Leahy, D-Vermont
Levin, D-Michigan
Lieberman, D-Connecticut
McConnell, R-Kentucky
Mikulski, D-Maryland
Murray, D-Washington
Obama, D-Illinois
Pryor, D-Arkansas
Reed, D-Rhode Island
Sarbanes, D-Maryland
Schumer, D-New York
Wyden, D-Oregon

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate by a single vote Tuesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to ban desecrating the American flag.

The measure would have rolled back a 1989 Supreme Court decision allowing it. The vote was 66-34.

A two-thirds majority is needed to pass a proposed constitutional amendment. It then would need ratification by 38 of the 50 states.

The measure was the latest in a series of controversial election-year votes engineered by the chamber's GOP leaders in an effort to entice the party's conservative base to the polls in November.

Fourteen Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, voted in favor of the measure. Three Republicans, including majority whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, voted against it. (Watch how the Senate decided on the issue -- 2:11)

Senators began debating the amendment Monday, along with an alternative proposal from Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and Bob Bennett, R-Utah. They wanted to ban flag desecration by law rather than by constitutional amendment. That proposal, too, was shot down Tuesday, 64-36. (Full story)

A constitutional ban on flag burning is seen as being more widely popular than the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriages. A gay-marriage ban was defeated earlier this month and was seen as another attempt by the GOP to mobilize its conservative base before November.

In a CNN poll earlier this month, 56 percent of people surveyed said they supported the measure rejected Tuesday by the Senate, while 40 percent of respondents opposed it. The poll surveyed 1,031 adults and has a sampling error of 3 percentage points. (Poll)

The House passed the measure and sent it to the Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, approved the proposal, 11-7, earlier this month.

All 10 Republicans on the committee and one Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, supported it.

From the Senate floor Monday, Specter compared flag desecration to libel and child pornography, forms of expression he said have no "social value."

"Flag burning is a form of expression that is spiteful or vengeful," the five-term senator said. "It is designed to hurt. It is not designed to persuade."

But Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont sided with the 1989 Supreme Court decision, which voted 5-4 in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning was a political statement and that state laws banning it were unconstitutional.

The First Amendment was designed precisely to protect this sort of expression, Leahy said.

"The First Amendment never needs defending when it comes to popular speech," Leahy said. "It's when it comes to unpopular speech that it needs defending."

He called the efforts to pass the amendment "electioneering rallying cries."

The Texas v. Johnson case came to the court five years after Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag at City Hall during a political demonstration at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas.

Johnson was convicted of violating state law, sentenced to a year in prison and fined $2,000. The Supreme Court ruled his arrest was unconstitutional.

Writing for the majority, Justice William Brennan stated, "Johnson was not, we add, prosecuted for the expression of just any idea; he was prosecuted for his expression of dissatisfaction with the policies of this country, expression situated at the core of our First Amendment values."

Congress' attempt to overturn a Supreme Court decision by amending the Constitution is "extremely rare," said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, but it's in line with how the American system of government was designed to work.

"The only way to overrule a Supreme Court precedent is by changing the Constitution," Toobin said. He added that legislators backing the flag-burning amendment are operating "exactly the way the framers of the Constitution intended when they want to change something for all time."

More wasting of time. Everything going on and we're wasting our time on this? The US is free and since we're free it's within our right to burn the flag, despite if others think its morally or ethical uncouth.

[ski_adk]

But what a great way to distract the populace from the proverbial fan all covered in shiat. Threaten their guaranteed Constitutional rights so that they move their attention away from failing wars, trade imbalances, natural disasters and the coming oil shortage.

In other words, just another case of the political machine trying to wag the dog.

[GladeMasterB]

If it is legal to burn the flag it should also be legal to beat the snot out of the bastard doing the burning.

[GladeMasterB]

Hey XJ, spend some time with some veterans and see if they would describe burning the flag as uncouth

[XtremeJibber2001]

But what a great way to distract the populace from the proverbial fan all covered in shiat. Threaten their guaranteed Constitutional rights so that they move their attention away from failing wars, trade imbalances, natural disasters and the coming oil shortage.

In other words, just another case of the political machine trying to wag the dog.

Ugh Huh! There are so many similarities between the US and Rome (gov't out of tune with the people), I just hope we don't meet the same demise.

Speaking of which ... anyone familiar with a book that discusses the similarities, differences, and pitfalls between the two superpowers (US/Rome)? If there isn't one, that would be an excellent book to write!

[XtremeJibber2001]

Hey XJ, spend some time with some veterans and see if they would describe burning the flag as uncouth

Two of my Uncles are veteran's of WWII and a coworker of mine is a Vietnam vet ... I think you'd be surprised to hear their opinions.

There is no doubt that many Vet's and other citizens would see it as unpatriotic, treason, and several other things, but it's within the peoples right to burn it ... even if I disagree with it.

Like Pat Henry said ...

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[SkiDork]

But what a great way to distract the populace from the proverbial fan all covered in shiat. Threaten their guaranteed Constitutional rights so that they move their attention away from failing wars, trade imbalances, natural disasters and the coming oil shortage.

In other words, just another case of the political machine trying to wag the dog.

Ugh Huh! There are so many similarities between the US and Rome (gov't out of tune with the people), I just hope we don't meet the same demise.

Speaking of which ... anyone familiar with a book that discusses the similarities, differences, and pitfalls between the two superpowers (US/Rome)? If there isn't one, that would be an excellent book to write!

What about British Empire also?

[XtremeJibber2001]

But what a great way to distract the populace from the proverbial fan all covered in shiat. Threaten their guaranteed Constitutional rights so that they move their attention away from failing wars, trade imbalances, natural disasters and the coming oil shortage.

In other words, just another case of the political machine trying to wag the dog.

Ugh Huh! There are so many similarities between the US and Rome (gov't out of tune with the people), I just hope we don't meet the same demise.

Speaking of which ... anyone familiar with a book that discusses the similarities, differences, and pitfalls between the two superpowers (US/Rome)? If there isn't one, that would be an excellent book to write!

What about British Empire also?

Perhaps. Unfortunatly I don't know as much about that particular empire compared to Rome.

[Cityskier]

Speaking of which ... anyone familiar with a book that discusses the similarities, differences, and pitfalls between the two superpowers (US/Rome)? If there isn't one, that would be an excellent book to write!

Not exactly what you are looking for, but a very interesting read nonetheless is The Sorrows of Empire : Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic [The American Empire Project] by Chalmers Johnson.

We differ from the Roman empire in that we aren't attempting to overtake entire countries. We have no use for the local inhabitants. Our empire has to do with accessing resources and controlling local economies. We aren't colonialists in the sense of the British empire either, but what we do maintain is a network of well over 700 military bases on foreign soil used to show the world we mean business.

It's no mistake that our VP used to run a defense contractor. Follow the money trail and and you will find the powere and right now it's in that 5 sided building. The one with the big dome is just an eloborate show for all of you so easily distracted.

[BigKahuna13]

If it is legal to burn the flag it should also be legal to beat the snot out of the bastard doing the burning.

Among the stupider things I've read today.

[BigKahuna13]

Speaking of which ... anyone familiar with a book that discusses the similarities, differences, and pitfalls between the two superpowers (US/Rome)? If there isn't one, that would be an excellent book to write!

Not exactly what you are looking for, but a very interesting read nonetheless is The Sorrows of Empire : Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic [The American Empire Project] by Chalmers Johnson.

We differ from the Roman empire in that we aren't attempting to overtake entire countries. We have no use for the local inhabitants. Our empire has to do with accessing resources and controlling local economies. We aren't colonialists in the sense of the British empire either, but what we do maintain is a network of well over 700 military bases on foreign soil used to show the world we mean business.

It's no mistake that our VP used to run a defense contractor. Follow the money trail and and you will find the powere and right now it's in that 5 sided building. The one with the big dome is just an eloborate show for all of you so easily distracted.

Adding that to my reading list.

As regards the Romans, I was always under the impression that they didn't really take over other countries as much form very tight alliances via very close economic ties and having them supply troops for the Roman legions.

Or maybe that was only during their republican stage.

[RJSVermont]

If it is legal to burn the flag it should also be legal to beat the snot out of the bastard doing the burning.

Among the stupider things I've read today.

Remember BK, he's still young and very impressionable. I've come to the conclusion that most of what GMB spouts off here is heavily based on what he hears from his peers and not much so based on his own developed opinion.

As for this flag burning amendmant Glademaster, it is nothing more than another blundering and time wasting diversion from the Republican party to get their far right supporters riled up.

[Dr. NO]

If it is legal to burn the flag it should also be legal to beat the snot out of the bastard doing the burning.

Among the stupider things I've read today.

Remember BK, he's still young and very impressionable. I've come to the conclusion that most of what GMB spouts off here is heavily based on what he hears from his peers and not much so based on his own developed opinion.

As for this flag burning amendmant Glademaster, it is nothing more than another blundering and time wasting diversion from the Republican party to get their far right supporters riled up.

This ammendment has been on the table since the 80's. How can you say it is a "Republican party" diversion. It failed to get out of committee previously, but was also backed by many Democrats.