Lawmakers oppose political speech, citing national unity

  • News
  • Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Unity
In summary, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration fell short of the two-thirds majority needed in the Senate, but passed in the House. Many lawmakers, including Senator Hatch, believe that the amendment will restore the First Amendment to its original intent. However, others, such as Senator Mel Martinez, see flag desecration as a threat to national unity. Despite this, many are skeptical of the true intentions behind the amendment and criticize it as a political stunt. The vote was close, with only one vote needed to pass, and it is believed that many Democrats voted in favor due to public opinion polls. However, this has brought into question the integrity of these politicians and the influence of corporate money in the two-party system.
  • #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:

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 [Broken]

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. :grumpy:

(Incidentally, Hillary Clinton actually sponsored this farce, apparently selling out to cheap politics. :devil: )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Moderators: my thread title is afflicted with dyslexia - could you fix the "political"? :uhh:
 
  • #4
I'm confused as to why so many Democrats voted for it. Can anyone shed some light on that?
 
  • #5
russ_watters said:
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!
 
  • #6
russ_watters said:
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).
 

1. What is the purpose of lawmakers opposing political speech?

The purpose of lawmakers opposing political speech is to maintain national unity and prevent division among citizens. They believe that allowing political speech can lead to further polarization and hinder the progress of the country.

2. Is this a violation of freedom of speech?

No, lawmakers are not restricting the right to freedom of speech. They are simply discouraging the use of political speech in certain contexts in order to promote unity and cooperation among citizens.

3. How do lawmakers determine what constitutes political speech?

Lawmakers may use certain criteria, such as the topic being discussed and the intent of the speech, to determine if it falls under the category of political speech. They may also consult legal experts and refer to previous cases for guidance.

4. Are there any exceptions to this opposition of political speech?

Yes, there may be exceptions in cases where political speech is necessary for the functioning of the government or in situations where it is protected by law, such as during protests or in the media.

5. Is there any scientific research to support the belief that political speech can harm national unity?

There is ongoing research on the effects of political speech on national unity, but it is a complex and multifaceted issue. Some studies suggest that political speech can lead to division and hostility, while others argue that it can promote healthy debate and democracy. Ultimately, the impact of political speech on national unity may vary depending on the context and individuals involved.

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
264
Views
25K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
83
Views
9K
Replies
79
Views
8K
Back
Top