THE Republican majority in the US Senate has failed by just one vote to amend the constitution to ban desecration of the national flag.
The motion was backed by 66 votes, one short of the two thirds majority need to get a constitutional amendment passed.
Thirty-four senators voted against.
The 34 included 3 republicans, McConnell, Lincoln Chafee, and Bennett.
First, I don't care about this amendment. I wouldn't push it, but I'm not so opposed to it that I would write my congressman about it.
Second, I can't imagine anybody making a decision about a candidate based solely on this vote. But apparently among those who do, most of the politicians think they are on the pro-amendment side, explaining why so many democrats vote FOR this amendment (like Mark Dayton and Dianne Feinstein!!)
Third, Flag-burning is a problem waiting to happen. Flag-burning would likely increase if it was a crime -- people who protest are looking for attention, and you don't get attention for things that are legal but annoying.
Fourth, we should not NEED an amendment for this. The Supreme Court went off-course when they equated ACTS with WORDS. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but the founders surely KNEW that, and if they wanted they could have written that congress could not abridge freedom of action, and they didn't.
Fifth, I think there is some supreme irony that in a country where everybody is up in arms about the separation of Church and State, our Supreme Court has ruled that we can't protect the symbol of our country from burning, but we CAN protect the symbol of Christianity from burning.
In the end, our freedom is what makes our country strong, not the symbol of our country. We have a right to be outraged at the mistreatment of the flag, and the disrespect it shows to our heritage and way of life. And to make that illegal would just make it harder for us to know those who we should be wary of.
3 comments:
Excellent post, Charles.
THanks. I wonder if Vince will withdraw his support of Chafee now since Chafee voted no and Vince won't support someone who opposes the amendment.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
One of the admirable things about Vincent is that he tells us exactly what he thinks about an issue, but then will share with us later reflections he has as he studies an issue. Because of his age, candor, and enthusiasm, he often reflects processes that others of us went through much less openly a long time ago. He feels strongly in favor of the amendment, but I think he can see that there's a good faith element to the other side of the issue, even from a conservative standpoint. Of course, it's presumptuous of me to speak for him, especialy when he's so capable of speaking for himself.
Post a Comment