Anti-flag-burning amendment clears Senate panel

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a Senate panel's approval of a constitutional amendment aimed at banning the burning of the American flag. Participants express various opinions on the implications and motivations behind this legislative move, touching on themes of political strategy, public sentiment, and historical context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the amendment is a distraction from more pressing issues, comparing it to other legislative efforts that are unlikely to pass.
  • Others argue that the amendment may alienate moderate conservatives and liberals, questioning its strategic value.
  • A few participants draw parallels to other political maneuvers, such as the reintroduction of military draft bills, suggesting a pattern of introducing controversial measures without genuine intent to pass them.
  • Some express skepticism about the amendment's potential success, indicating that it may be more about rallying conservative support than addressing substantive issues.
  • One participant mentions a personal reaction to the idea of flag burning, suggesting that banning it could alter its symbolic meaning.
  • Another participant recalls a Supreme Court ruling that indicated flag burning is more of a state issue than a federal one, questioning the constitutional basis for the amendment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the amendment's likelihood of passing, but there is no consensus on the motivations behind its introduction. Some view it as a strategic move to rally conservative voters, while others see it as a misguided effort with little hope of success.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference historical legislative patterns and public sentiment, indicating that the discussion is influenced by broader political contexts and previous legislative attempts.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Senate panel approved a measure on Thursday that would change the Constitution to let Congress ban burning of the American flag, setting up an election-year debate over a perennial hot-button issue. [continued]
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsA...Z_01_N04343017_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-FLAG.xml

Is there anything more important that we can talk about; say perhaps, whether Keith Richard fell from a palm tree or a jet ski?

For those who don't know, flag burning ammendments are what you talk about when you're desparate - desparate to avoid real issue. There is also the great issue of the Senate elevator operators. True some years ago and I assume that it still is, even though we haven't needed operators in elevators since the 50s or 60s, the Senate still has them. Every now and again a new Senator comes along who sees these unnecessary employees, and who then raises a stink about getting rid of the operators. But then the young Senator is educated as to the real function of the operators, and the issue goes away until the next young new Senator comes along. You see, the Senators use the elevator operators as a go-between [in some fashion] when they don't wish to meet with another Senator directly. Anyway, like elevator operators, flag burning ammendments have their place.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This confuses me. There is nothing to gain from it. It has no hope of passing, and will alienate more moderate conservatives (not to mention, liberals). I don't see any desperation, just bad decision-making.
 
russ_watters said:
I don't see any desperation, just bad decision-making.


Which is about inline with what one would expect.

This reminds me of the Democratic Party congressmen who always reintroduce a military draft bill (there's two of them, I forget who). Made me smile during the '04 election to hear people prattling about the draft we would get if Bush got reelected.

This I'm not worried about. As russ said, it will never pass. Now, http://www.savetheinternet.com/" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds like that amendment those democrats were trying to get passed to allow more then 2 terms. Ain't happening.

If you ever take a look, Congress tends to toss in some dumb as hell things that they know won't get passed... I am not sure what they think they're going to get out of it.
 
franznietzsche said:
This reminds me of the Democratic Party congressmen who always reintroduce a military draft bill (there's two of them, I forget who). Made me smile during the '04 election to hear people prattling about the draft we would get if Bush got reelected.
Yes, that's exactly how I see it. There wasn't any desperation with the draft thing either. It was just pointless.
 
I think they hope to [are desperate to] rally the base of old school conservatives.

What else do they have?

"Tax and Spend" liberals won't fly anymore. Just let the "Borrow and Squander" Republicans try that one again. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
I think they hope to [are desperate to] rally the base of old school conservatives.

What else do they have?

"Tax and Spend" liberals won't fly anymore. Just let the "Borrow and Squander" Republicans try that one again. :biggrin:
Because the Republican base is more concerned about Mexican flags being flown right now, I suspect this ban won't "fly." They'll have better luck with gay marriage props to attact the religious-right.
 
I have never considered burning a flag before. However I just might if it is banned, because the flag will no longer be a symbol of freedom.
 
Don't worry it won't. They want attention but not to actually do anything.

Edit: Well, maybe this time is different. After all, they are desparate.

I had a little one in my office but threw it away when Bush got re-elected. ...guess we had better get a flag throwing-away ammendment as well.

Of course it wasn't just that Bush got re-elected, it was the half of the country who voted for him.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I thought the suprme court said it was more of a state thing then a federal one.
 

Similar threads

News House approves flag-burning amendment
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
8K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K