http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/27/MNGL4JLDTN3.DTL

Serious debate and yes it was voted down with 52 GoP and 14 Dem supporting it.

I myself understand the ire and the anger at seeing someone burn the flag. More than likely I'll stick a big ole foot in someones ass if I see them doing it.

However, I understand the arguement that it's a Freedom of Speech issue. Tho I wonder why you can't find another way to show your own ire at our Govt.

Torn I am, thinking this is not yet over I do!

Fandros

Indeed

http://www.yodajeff.com/y2k/flag.jpg

The flag is a symbol of the very philosophy that protects the right to desecrate that symbol. Burning the flag won't burn away our rights, but destroy that right of expression and the flag may as well burn along with it.

This is an entirely separate argument from whether flag desecration makes you a protester standing up for your beliefs or makes you an asshole (or makes you a martyr, for that matter). It's the principle of the thing.

How widely was this amendment construed, anyway? I saw picture recently of Bush (on the campaign trail) autographing a little flag for a supporter. From what I understand, he's guilty of desecration according to this proposal (and the 'rules' governing the handling of the flag). I'm sure he's not the only one by far.

....sorry, but wasting time on friggan flag burning, which has already gone through the judiciary branch, is just another waste of our tax paying dollars.

Personally, compared with the Iraq War, Illegal Immigration, Evironmental issues (which you can lump a shitload into), Iran, North Korea.........

Flag Burning and Gay marriage are pretty much at the bottom of the list.

Flag Burning and Gay marriage are pretty much at the bottom of the list.

Not if you are trying to energize your base.

Ya think they would be willing to include an extra line in that amendment that all flags sold and flown in the United States be made in the USA?

The New Yorker has a great cover on the new issue.:p

Speaking of that list....

Specter has announced he wishes to sue Bush for his comments he writes on bills that pass. I can't think of the term atm it elludes me but apparently Bush likes to add his own verbiage. Apparently moreso than any other President in history unless the news source was wrong.

So next up...Congress to sue the President.

Specter is such a nutjob.

I suppose those that attach completely different riders to bills should be sued as well.

Back to topic.....

Yes flag burning may seem small to you, and while not small to me I see the issue of Freedom of Speech powers being stretched.

It's not energizing the your voter base to chase an issue that's been pushed for years.

It's also of note that while the Bench did indeed work this issue that many of our Senate feel that it was an abuse of power on their end and they'd like to right said law.

Fandros

Specter has announced he wishes to sue Bush for his comments he writes on bills that pass. I can't think of the term atm it elludes me but apparently Bush likes to add his own verbiage. Apparently moreso than any other President in history unless the news source was wrong.

You're referring to the signing statements (http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm) Bush has issued and Specter's hearings on them today. I wouldn't get too excited. Specter has loudly proclaimed his adversity to this or that administration program in the past, only to give BushCo a pass after a week. Still, holding hearings is a step in the right direction.

Legal scholar and former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein testified:

The Founding Fathers intended the veto power of the President to be employed primarily to thwart laws he believed were unconstitutional, whether because they encroached on executive branch powers or otherwise. As Alexander Hamilton amplified in Federalist 73, without a veto the President "might gradually be stripped of his authorities by successive resolutions, or annihilated by a single vote." Indeed, the presidential oath enshrined in Article II requires the President to veto any law he believes is unconstitutional in whole or in part because it obligates him to defend the Constitution, not participate in its sabotage. The President does not enjoy a constitutional option of unilaterally pronouncing a provision he has signed into law as unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it on that count. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lear Siegler v. Lehman, 842 F.2d 1102 (1988) explained: "Art. I, section 7 is explicit that the President must either sign or veto a bill presented to him. Once signed by the President,...the bill becomes part of the law of the land and the President must 'take care that [it] be faithfully executed.' Art. I, section 7 does not empower the President to employ a so-called 'line item veto' and excise or sever provisions of a bill with which he disagrees. The only constitutionally prescribed means for the President to effectuate his objections to a bill is to veto it and state those objections upon returning the bill to Congress. The 'line item veto' does not exist in the federal Constitution, and the executive branch cannot bring a de facto 'line item veto' into existence by promulgating orders to suspend parts of statutes which the President has signed into law."
Probably the most outstanding example of all this was the McCain amendment regarding torture. This amendment received wide bipartisan support at a time when torture allegations and apparent support of torture by the administration was in the news. Bush signed the bill and its amendment into law amid much fanfare, then issued a signing statement stating, essentially, that he'd ignore it if he wanted to. Whatever Specter ends up deciding, his choice to hold hearings isn't the thinking of a "nutjob" at all.

I'm in agreement with you Thor and that was the specific instance that surrounded this brief blip I heard on the air this morning. Either veto or let it pass, I'd never heard of signing statements until today.

Ahhh didn't mean to imply he was a nutjob for this particular instance. Meant he was a nutjob because he was always up in arms one week and okay with it the next.

Fandros

I'd certainly agree with that.

I saw this up on CNN a few days back, and was shocked. How is this even remotely an issue right now? Are the lawmakers really sitting around with the biggest concern on their minds being, "Damn, them hicks is burnin' the flag again!"

It IS a big deal, I suppose, in a time of freakin' peace when there's nothing better to argue about (thank you Lewis Black). I sure don't like seeing it burned, but Thormir summed things up very nicely:The flag is a symbol of the very philosophy that protects the right to desecrate that symbol. Burning the flag won't burn away our rights, but destroy that right of expression and the flag may as well burn along with it. You would think with all of the other crap to worry about, the Senate could spend their time a little better. This is another lame attempt to get the focus off of real issues (Crap, gays are holding hands again!!! Look over there!) and to mobilize voters. Sort of a, "Hey look, this is what the democrats will do if you let them into power."

Totally retarded issue,just as the gay marriage issue was.What a waste of our tax money,not to mention time.
So many actual important issues out there to worry about and this is all they can come up with lately?
I dont care what damn party there from,its all politics and pandering before an election.They dont give a rats ass about anyone or anything except for what gets them there votes to remain in power.

They toss out the red meat,to lure the fools out to cast there votes for em.Course afterwards,they tend to forget about those very issues,(at least until the next election comes around).All to the ire of those that voted them in.Of course they always come crawling back in the end, like the abused spouse,lured in by the candy and flowers and words of apology.
Enthralled by there Illusions and parlor tricks.They willingly wallow in there lies and feast on there hypocrises.Until there bloated little bellys burst in the europhia,thinking someone actually cares about them.
Well,that is, until reality steps in. P

Don't think you'll find anyone who'll disagree with your post Allamar. strongly worded but a pretty accurate picture of modern american politics and the sheep who who are the american populace.