Flag burning amendment fails by one vote

It was close:

WASHINGTON – A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification a week before Independence Day.

The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, read: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

I have to say I’m not keen at all having an amendment on the books that says burning the flag is unconstitutional. As much as it sickens me to see someone burn the flag, I realize that doing so is part of the right to free speech we have under the Constitution. Even disgusting speech is and should still be protected.

11 Responses to "Flag burning amendment fails by one vote"

benning says:

June 27, 2006 at 9:24 pm

There are enough laws on the books that make burning a flag in public difficult if not impossible. If our elected officials would tell the police to do their damned jobs, flag burning would not happen often. Get a permit or be arrested! Follow the laws regarding burning or get arrested!

Sheesh! No more Barbara Streisand about an Amendment! :-w
No Flag Burning Amendment at 4thelittleguy.com says:

June 27, 2006 at 10:40 pm

[…] Hot Air Stop the ACLU Sister Toldjah […]
camojack says:

June 28, 2006 at 12:13 am

Actually, burning is a proper way to dispose of old flags. Just sayin’… **==
Marshall Art says:

June 28, 2006 at 1:47 am

Disposal is one thing, desecration quite another. I vasilate (in the privacy of my own home, of course) on this issue. The most offended by such displays are vets, and on their behalf I support the notion. However, it’s another easy way to identify a**holes. I don’t agree that free speech allows for absolutely anything, and I don’t believe that restricting this one activity puts much of a damper on free speech anyway. Also, aside from all that, how would enforcement actually work?
CZ says:

June 28, 2006 at 8:04 am

Burning the flag is a ‘hate crime’ just as burning a cross. What works for one should work for the other.

Burning a flag is very offensive to me. It expresses hatred of freedom and disrespects all who fought and died for it.

Besides, burning a flag creates greenhouse gasses that cause global warming.

Anybody know what the health effects are of second-hand smoke from a burning flag?

God Bless America **==
PCD says:

June 28, 2006 at 8:17 am

Burning the flag is a metaphor for burning down the US. It is pure hate of the US.

I firmly believe that if you are a US Citizen who burns a flag in so called free speech protest, that you should lose your citizenship and be deported to the country of your choice or one matching your political beliefs.
Iowa Voice says:

June 28, 2006 at 10:38 am

Flag Burning Amendment Fails To Pass Senate

The Senate failed by one vote to pass the flag burning amendment:

A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration fell one vote short of the 67-vote threshold needed for Senate passage and referral to the states.

The proposed amendment, sponsore
Karl says:

June 28, 2006 at 11:00 am

I am with ST on this. I hate flag burning and fly mine with pride, but I oppose any constitutional meddling about it. That is not the job of the constitution.

One interesting, if over looked part of this is the breakdown of who voted for it. My blog has the roll call list. To have gotten so many people to cross the aisle (52 republicans, 14 democrats) and vote for this is astounding to me. I expected the vote to be along party lines.

The issue is a hot one, with a surprising amount of popular support.and we will see it again soon…
Jim M says:

June 28, 2006 at 11:47 am

I have to agree with Sis T burning the American flag in protest of policy or what ever is protected under the First Amendment. This is scary to think it failed by one vote this shows how little our Senators understand our Constitution or is it the public? Do we really want the Government to have the power to tell us how, when and what speech is acceptable to protest? Are we also going to tell people what to do with there personal property another words if someone buys the flag it is their property isn’t it? The flag burning amendment is very popular but we are not a Democracy (Mob Rule) we are a Republic of laws and the First Amendment protects Freedom of Speech. Even if that speech is unpopular remember you have the right to freedom of speech but that doesn’t mean we have to listen or watch. I also detest the burning of the American flag in protest but those that would burn it have the right to freedom of Speech and the right to destroy their personal property.
Malcor says:

June 28, 2006 at 12:28 pm

I posted this elsewhere. I hope no-one minds me reposting it here.

I see no need for such an Amendment. As far as I am concerned, things are perfectly fine the way they are now.

When someone retard takes his lighter to Old Glory as a form of ‘protest’, it does two things to me. The first is that it makes me angry and the second is that it makes me glad.

It makes me angry that some young punk thinks he or she is incredibly clever because they have to senselessly destroy the very icon of what gives them the right to do so in the first place. In that sense, it’s a bit ironic, but that in no way staves off the fury.

It makes me glad because I don’t have to wonder who is and who isn’t an extremist buffoon. By the very act, they have pointed out for everyone to see exactly what kind of person they are. That’s worth it, right there, to me. It would be tantamount to one of the insurgents in Iraq who, while previously hiding in a crowd from our troops suddenly jumped up, whooped “Allahu Akbar!” and shot a few AK rounds into the sky. Thank you, asshat, for identifying yourself ahead of time instead of lying in wait or going unnoticed until you could inflict some real damage. Any time an enemy wants to identify themselves so clearly and openly rather than skulk about in the shadows to create mayhem later is fine by me.

As for burning it… the joke’s on them, that’s how one brings our flag to its honorable end. Though they may not know it, they are performing the same physical act as one who gives the flag its highest honor, even if their motives are crude and vile.
Marshall Art says:

June 29, 2006 at 2:20 am

I say again, this issue tilts me both ways…on the flag burning issue that is. Though I don’t feel the need personally for such an amendment, I understand the passion of those who sincerely back it and wouldn’t have a problem with it passing. However, I must thank Jim M for the overlooked angle of burning one’s own property. That’s a good point for sure. Goes to my enforcement conundrum. However, this amendment would have no impact on other forms of free speech. It is specific to this one special symbol. It doesn’t neccessarily threaten any other forms of expression. Whether or not is passes is small potatoes to me (and here I use the “po-TAH-toes” pronunciation, just for fun).

Comments are closed.