- #1
Rach3
Lawmakers oppose political speech, citing "national unity"
It seems that a large majority of U.S. lawmakers have become blind to the freedom of political expression - particularly the protection of the unpopular views. It has been repeatedly established in SCOTUS that political descration of the act is, obviously, a political expression sanctioned by the 1st amendment (see Texas v. Johnson (1989) or US v. Eichman (1990)); so a majority of legislators in both houses have a problem with the First Amendment itself:
This is a transparent, election-year political stunt that politicians have been attempting for decades. Obviously it won't get the 38 states' approval needed for ratification, even if it did pass the senate (which it didn't). The rhetoric ranges from renewed attacks on the judiciary
to demagogy such as
It's disturbing for what purposes this kind of nationalistic rhetoric is being used for.
(Incidentally, Hillary Clinton actually sponsored this farce, apparently selling out to cheap politics. )
It seems that a large majority of U.S. lawmakers have become blind to the freedom of political expression - particularly the protection of the unpopular views. It has been repeatedly established in SCOTUS that political descration of the act is, obviously, a political expression sanctioned by the 1st amendment (see Texas v. Johnson (1989) or US v. Eichman (1990)); so a majority of legislators in both houses have a problem with the First Amendment itself:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_co/flag_amendmentThe proposed constitutional amendment fell four votes short of the 67, or two-thirds majority needed, the last time the Senate voted on it, in 2000. Both sides expected it to get more votes Tuesday but not 67. The House approved the amendment by more than a two-thirds majority, 286-130, last June.
This is a transparent, election-year political stunt that politicians have been attempting for decades. Obviously it won't get the 38 states' approval needed for ratification, even if it did pass the senate (which it didn't). The rhetoric ranges from renewed attacks on the judiciary
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/w...&en=3caeb149d9e60823&ei=5094&partner=homepageSenator Hatch said the amendment would "restore the constitution to what it was before unelected jurists changed it five to four." He went on to say, "Five lawyers decided 48 states were wrong."
to demagogy such as
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/w...&en=3caeb149d9e60823&ei=5094&partner=homepageBut Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, said any desecration of the flag was unacceptable, saying, "People place great importance in symbols of national unity."
It's disturbing for what purposes this kind of nationalistic rhetoric is being used for.
(Incidentally, Hillary Clinton actually sponsored this farce, apparently selling out to cheap politics. )
Last edited by a moderator: