| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/9 |
| 2006/6/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:43504 Activity:nil |
6/26 Senate within one vote of passing constitutional amendment to ban
flag burning
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/26/flag
\_ Thank God our elected representatives are making us safer.
\_ Shouldn't it set off alarm bells among (are there any left?) the
small gvt folks that "A total of 14 Democrats, including Minority
Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Dianne Feinstein of California,
are expected to join 52 Republicans who support changing the
Constitution to allow federal prohibitions of flag burning."?
\_ Yes, but it's also a midterm election year.
\_ The small government folks are voting for the few real
conservatives who show up on the election rosters.
\_ Feinstein is a sell-out and a tool. -tom
\_ 'In a recent USA Today editorial, (Feinstein) wrote, "There is no
idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that
cannot be expressed equally well in another manner."'
Does she have any idea what a foolish road that is to walk?
\_ here's the op-ed: http://csua.org/u/g9m
I strongly disagree with her. For one, her argument about
the Lincoln Memorial is ass, as there is only one of those,
and a ton of U.S. flags anyone can buy.
I also watched her on CNN last week on the panel of woman
Democrat senators, and she looked ... senile.
This is in contrast to Boxer, who seems articulate and informed.
\_ If their political views/votes were reversed I suspect your
opinion of each would reverse as well.
\_ I doubt it. I've seen a lot of Boxer, but not that much
Feinstein. Boxer looks dynamic; Feinstein, senile.
Feinstein. Boxer looks dynamic; Feinstein, slow.
\_ I doubt it. I've seen a lot of Boxer, and she's always
looked dynamic, informed, and articulate.
\_ Uh huh. I've seen a lot of both and I think Boxer is
a mindless party line drone. My politics are much
closer to Feinstein however so I at least realise that
my opinion of each is tainted by my political views.
\_ Her conclusion is pure hand-waving. If there is some other
expression similar to burning the flag, would it not also
be reasonable that congress has the power to block it as well?
\_ We should also disallow not standing up when the national
anthem is playing. You diminish the bravery of every
soldier who has fought for the United States, some of whom
have been horribly injured for their sacrifice.
\_ I might have to partake in a protest mass flag burning if this shit
happens. I wonder if pissing on the flag will still be allowed?
\_ A more clever way to protest this is to serve up a nice batch
of American flag cookies, with a note pointing out that anyone
who actually eats one would be breaking the law by directly
transforming the American flag into excrement.
\_ Uh... no. The way to protest most things is to do that
thing on a large scale. The sillier the thing, the larger
the scale.
\_ I think that's the wrong approach in this case. Part of
the reason it didn't pass is that the severity of the
problem (very very small) vs. the encroachment on freedom
of expression makes it not appealing to pass. If people
come out and start defacing the flag right and left, I
can't imagine it swaying opinion _away_ from passing the
bill.
\_ Uh, the bill didn't and probably never will pass and
even if it does that's only the start of a long process
to attempt to change the Constitution. I think it's
stupid but if someone wants to burn the flag go ahead.
No one is going to change the Constitution because
some people in Berkeley burned the flag.
\_ Don't forget to provide American flag napkins for the
crumbs. |
| 7/9 |
|
| www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/26/flag -> www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/26/flag/index_np.html S++ News AP Photo/Rick Bowmer A protester burns an American flag outside the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles in August 2000. If only for a cigarette lighter, Rick Monday would have gone down in history as just another above-average baseball player, a left-hander who peaked with a 32-home-run season. But on April 25, 1976, two bell-bottomed protesters jumped the outfield fence at Dodger Stadium and streaked onto the field with an American flag, a bottle of lighter fluid and a pack of matches. By the time they got the second match going, Monday had run over to snatch the flag away, making his mark as the slugger who saved the Stars and Stripes. Thirty years later, it is politics as much as patriotism that keeps Monday's achievement in the headlines. Senate Republicans have been treating him like a war hero in recent weeks, passing a resolution to commemorate his courage and holding a Flag Day rally on the lawn outside the Capitol in his honor. The slugger brought with him the yellowed and tattered, but uncharred, flag he saved in Los Angeles, as six senators took their turn at a podium to praise Old Glory and memorialize the outfielder's spot decision. "It is arguably one of the greatest moments in the game," praised Sen. Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican, who played as a pitcher in the major leagues until 1971. "Like Rick, we should do everything we can to protect and honor our flag." The festivities were not timed to celebrate the anniversary of Monday's flag swipe, which occurred months ago. Rather, Monday has offered himself as a poster boy for the latest attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration, which by Senate tradition rears its head most summers to coincide with the Fourth of July. Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. SALON is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Salon Media Group Inc. |
| csua.org/u/g9m -> www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-06-19-oppose-flag_x.htm Print | By Dianne Feinstein On the morning of February 24, 1945 -- when I was a 12-year-old girl -- I picked up a copy of the San Francisco Chronicle. On its cover, there was a full-page picture of the now iconic Joe Rosenthal photograph of American marines raising the United States flag at Iwo Jima. For me and for the nation, the photograph was a jolt of electricity boosting our morale during the terrible island-to-island Pacific battles of World War II. The sight of those troops hoisting Old Glory forever cemented my view of our flag. Today, our flag remains a vibrant symbol of our democracy, our shared values, our commitment to justice, and our eternal memory of those who have sacrificed to defend these principles. It is because of all that our flag embodies that I have co-sponsored the Flag Protection Amendment. Throughout our nation's history, the flag has been protected by law. In 1989, 48 of our 50 states had statutes restricting flag desecration. In 1974, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote that: "here would seem to be little question about the power of Congress to forbid the mutilation of the Lincoln Memorial or to prevent overlaying it with words or other objects. The flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection." I agree with Justice White -- the American flag is our monument in cloth. But its protection ended in 1989, when the US Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting flag desecration. Congress responded by passing the Flag Protection Act of 1989, but the Supreme Court struck down that law as well. The only way to restore protection to the flag is to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, any legislation passed by Congress would be struck down. The Flag Protection Amendment would not prohibit flag burning. Rather, the Amendment would simply return to Congress the ability to protect the flag as it has been protected throughout most of this nation's history. Some opponents of the Flag Protection Amendment argue that we must choose between trampling on the flag and trampling on the First Amendment. There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. This Amendment would leave both the flag and free speech safe. Dianne Feinstein is a Democratic senator from California. |