The Senate upholds “Freedom of Speech” rights.

Although I find flag burning image objectionable, this form of protest should NEVER be allowed to be banned by law.  Once we outlaw even the most objectionable forms of free speech we take a jog the oft invoked slippery slope.  I also find it interesting that the government would vote to ban flag burning, but not even discuss cross burning image I’ll go on the record now to say that burning the cross is more objectionable to a larger number of people that flag burning.  I’ll even go so far to say that I’m sure that most of the Patriotic Americans congressmen that voted FOR the flag burning amendment don’t have much of a problem with cross burning.  I wonder why ... ?

Aren’t you supposed to burn the Stars and Stripes when it becomes soiled or unservicable?

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

The Senate defeated by one vote a constitutional amendment banning desecration of the American flag.

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.”

Posted by SPN on 06/29 at 09:46 AM in Politics

The trackback URL for this entry is: M20o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr


M30o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr M40o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr


M50o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr M60o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr M70o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr
M80o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr M90o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr

<< Back to main