News Lawmakers oppose political speech, citing national unity

[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:

The 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_co/flag_amendment

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

Senator 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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/w...&en=3caeb149d9e60823&ei=5094&partner=homepage

to demagogy such as

But Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, said any desecration of the flag was unacceptable, saying, "People place great importance in symbols of national unity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/w...&en=3caeb149d9e60823&ei=5094&partner=homepage

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. )

 

[Rach3]

Moderators: my thread title is afflicted with dyslexia - could you fix the "political"?

 

[Rach3]

The AP article was inaccurate - the vote was not 63-37, but 66-34 for - only one vote short!

The vote was 66 to 34. To pass, the measure needed 67 votes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/w...&en=3caeb149d9e60823&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[russ_watters]

I'm confused as to why so many Democrats voted for it. Can anyone shed some light on that?

 

[turbo]

I'm confused as to why so many Democrats voted for it. Can anyone shed some light on that?

They are gutless idiots, practically indistiguishable from the gutless idiots of their opposition. The Congress of the past 6 years has been incapable of deliberation, representation, and oversight. They have allowed Bush to sign countless bills into law, while at the same time issuing "signing statements" that exempt him and his administration from obeying them. Congress is a batch of gutless cowards, intent upon maintaining their hold on their little fiefdoms at our expense. The differences between Democrats and Republicans in Congress don't amount to a bucket of warm spit. They are all beholden to special interest groups and the primary difference is in WHO they want to give my tax money to. I am more socially liberal than the Democrats and I am more fiscally conservative than any Republicans, and I can't find anybody to vote for without holding my nose. The 2-party system is controlled by corporate money and it SUCKS!

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm confused as to why so many Democrats voted for it. Can anyone shed some light on that?

It has to be that internal polling shows that a majority of the public are for the amendment. I'd venture that the majority of Democrats that voted for the amendment were trying to be nothing other than populist. They did not vote for the values they pretend to represent (that, in my opinion, makes them scumbags).