The Vote

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

I can hear it now...coming up next, a vote on changing the US Constitution to ban flag burnings at gay marriage celebrations. Will these Rethuglicans stoop to the lowest level possible? This is all getting so silly!

This and the gay marriage amendment attempt are nothing more than for the Repugs. to attempt to excite their base and to get them to the polls. Too bad according to most polls I have seen, the American public believes there are far more important issues at hand to deal with. These issues may come back to bite them in November.

[ June 28, 2006, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

How will this help or hinder the Hillary 2008 machine?

The vote has achieved its purpose. Now their constituents know if their senators are "patriotic Americans" or not, and can vote them out of office if they so choose.

LXN

Now that we've gotten beyond the "pandering to our base" point. Let's get back to the real business of America, like cutting the deficit and reigning in the big spending Bush Regime.

Now, now, before you start in with the name-calling again, don't forget about those 13 Demos who voted for this silly bill too, including CA's own Dianne Feinstein. Yes, there are many more important issues to be dealt with, but it takes two to tango, and the Demos aren't exactly leading the way on dealing with them either.

How will this help or hinder the GOP knuckledragger machine?

Just goes to show you how Democrats have turned into Republican-lite. Stupid two party system.

Just becuase they actually voted for it, doesn't mean they pushed to have it be voted on in the first place.


This vote, while mostly will have limited impact on anything in the future, has heated up in one state. In Virginia, George Allen voted for it and proceeded to rip his opponent Jim Webb....who happens to be a former Secretary of the Navy and a military veteran (Allen was not in the military) for not supporting it. It's already become a fiesty argument. I think that will be an interesting race to say the least.

They still voted for it though, and that's the punchline to the joke that is the current Democratic party.

I don't know about that. While I am not for it by any means, they are also supposed to vote as a REPRESENTATIVE to the people they elect them to. Many of the Democrats that did vote for it come from areas that are heavy with military or more conservative states.

There are Republicans who voted against it, should they be thrown out of the Republican party?

I think the Democrats as a whole did do a good job of skirting the main issue. All that was mentioned in newspapers, on tv, etc. was how flag buring is very rare, how it's an election year ploy, how they have more important things to do, etc. The Democrats got their message out and the Republicans didn't get to do any showboating on the issue like they tought would happen. They found themselves facing criticism.

The Republicans in Congress have totally lost their minds. Flag burning, gay marriage, taxes on pimps and prostitutes, protecting "Under God", what are the next going to think of next. This whole thing is nothing but a smoke screen to get people's mind off the REAL problems we have.

I am hoping in November that a message is sent and things will change. If it does not change soon, help us all.

Thank you Mr. Pitts.

The arguement that there are more important issues unfortunately misses the point and gives the true desecrators a free ride.

This amendment IS the desecration which they fear. Putting your faith in an icon is worst than burning one. It is built upon sinking sand.

I love Leonard Pitts. Well said sir! Read him every time he is in my local paper here.

Great article. I was wondering the same thing. Why are debating about an amendment to stop us from doing something we don't do anyway?

Has Dianne Feinstein had a recent illness? Is she being blackmailed? This isn't the Dianne Feinstein I used to know. What happened?

MD, don't forget that DiFi is a relative latecomer to gay rights. She wasn't that gay friendly when she was on the SF Board of Supes back in the '70s and I believe she may even have vetoed an early domestic partners measure while mayor. Many of us alte Kaempfer still recall her grudging appearance at gay functions and her lips curling as she watched G&L couples embrace. And, for those who set store by such things, I don't believe she ever found it in her to ride in SF's gay parade, though her successors did.

Indeed. Moreover, polls show a whopping majority of Americans want flag burning made illegal, and every state in the country has approved some sort of petition (or whatever one wishes to call it) calling for the Constitution to be amended to ban this.

Even though I doubt it will happen, it would be interesting to see if 2/3 of the states call for a convention at which they could draft such an amendment and send it to the states for ratification, thereby bypassing Congress altogether. What a site that would be.

Critize the "latecomer"
but...

the knuckledraggers in your party who want to write you out of the Constitution...

oh well, we're working within! the glass is half-full! stay tuned!

Oh PLEASE!!!

You know damned well that the states will NEVER call for a constitutional convention - way, way to scary and destabalizing to the powers that be. Opens up the whole ball of yarn - who knows what might come out?

Big Business alone would never allow it.

In the US, Calls for Constitutional Conventions are always by radicals of the right or left who wish to impose their will upon the majority: "for their own good of course".

The only time you will ever see a constitutional convention is when a majority of people lose faith in their government, when things have gotten so bad that corruption is rampant, nothing is being done, and people feel totally disenfranchised with nothing left to lose.

R

Actually MIB, support for flag burning laws has slipped. It the 90s it was consisteently in the high 60s and now it is typically in the mid 50s.

And in the latest Gallup poll, there was a big difference in results when using just flag burning laws and amending the Constitution. People are in favor of a law....but not in favor when it comes to amending the Constitution for it.

Yeah, that's exactly what I want to see, the majority of people finally banding together to outlaw things that bother them. Good thing they didn't try this in the 50s with the gays.

[ June 29, 2006, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Illini_fan ]

Polls have consistently shown numbers exceeding 80% support flag burning laws.

Don't be so sure of yourself. I do not want to see a con-con called, but it's not out of the realm of possibility on this issue.

>>>The only time you will ever see a constitutional convention is when a majority of people lose faith in their government, when things have gotten so bad that corruption is rampant, nothing is being done, and people feel totally disenfranchised with nothing left to lose.

Oh, you mean like when their elected representatives fail continuously to pass a law/constitutional amendment that the people have shown overewhelming support for? Something like that, you mean?

LXN

Don't give people any ideas, limiting our own free expression isn't something I want Americans to do.

I think if you survey most people about what the important political issues of the day are - the things that deeply matter to them personally - they will tell you about Jobs, Education, Health Care, Retirement and SS, the Economy, and maybe International Relations if you 'Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war' loudly enough to scare the zealots and underinformed - flag burning would end up somewhere way down the list along with whether or not Puerto Rico should become the next state.

Hey - I am not about to stand around and watch someone do it in front of me without a fight. But I will also Fight with everything I have got to defend the jerks right to burn it.

wink Chuckle, Actually I think Micheal Douglas articulated my views the best in his 'speach' in the movie 'The American President' Probably the only time I have ever agreed with him on anything.

And although a majority of people support such a law, thank God that in this country we sometimes still protect the views of the minority against the tyranny of the majority mob.

Otherwise - even with the changes in acceptance over the last 35 years - I doubt if you would dare show your opinion on this BB.

R

Exceeding 80% huh MIB?


.

USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 23-25, 2006

"Do you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and state governments to make it illegal to burn the American flag?"

6/23-25/06 Favor 56
6/25-27/99 Favor 63


Where'd you get the 80% number again MIB?

Don't you know that 45% of statistics are made up on the spot?

The American public doesn't need me "giving it ideas". They've already spoken about what's important to them. Well, when American Idol's on hiatus, in any event. And yes, if you sit down with them and ask them what they think are the most important issues of today, very few are going to mention "an anti flag-burning amendment". But when the issues is out on the table, people get excited. And now we have a list of senators who can be labelled "anti-flag" (and thus "anti-American"), which honestly I feel was the point of this entire exercise anyway.

>>>Where'd you get the 80% number again MIB?

From non-biased sources, Illini, unlike the left-leaning USA Today. Geez, even I can swat that one down.

LXN

Gannett Co., Inc. is "left-leaning"???

Geez, what do you think of as unbiased and neutral? The Union Leader (Manchester, NH)? The Cincinnati Enquirer (Cincinnati, OH)? The Tampa Tribune (Tampa, Fla)?

I know - I bet The Wisconsin State Journal is your favorite; they echo the White House spin more slavishly than most paid Republican operatives.

Try thinking outside the box.

R

Edit: Oops, I read this wrong, my mistake.

In any case, what I was going to say is those that voted against this are the most patriotic in my eyes. They understand that this country was founded with even those that are against its very core in mind. Thus, flag burning is a protected form of expression.

[ June 29, 2006, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Illini_fan ]

Oh Rob, don't you know that the Apartment Hunter and Auto Trader Times are unbiased!

I don't see a point in having an amendment on flag burning. If someone wants to burn the American flag in protest, let them.

I'm proud our gov't is concerned about major issues affecting Americans right now like gay marriage, violent video games and flag burning. They are on the pulse of the American people.

I never cited a poll on a constitutional amendment. Thanks for playing, though.

>>>I'm proud our gov't is concerned about major issues affecting Americans right now like gay marriage, violent video games and flag burning. They are on the pulse of the American people.

That's just it. These ARE the issues that rile the American public, far more so than the economy, the environment, or even the war. They might be uncertain about what to do in Iraq, or how to help the economy, or whether global warming exists. But dadgumit, they KNOW they don't want no homos gettin' married. They KNOW they don't want Johnny playing violent video games. And they ESPECIALLY know that they don't want the symbol of this great country set afire.

LXN

MIB, I'm no legal expert......but isn't the only way to make burning the flag illegal through a Constitutional amendment since that law has been struck down by the Supreme Court? I mean, it's not exactly a complicated issue like abortion where you can have different exceptions and scenarios, you either burn it or you don't.

>>>I mean, it's not exactly a complicated issue like abortion where you can have different exceptions and scenarios, you either burn it or you don't.

Really?

Let's say the law is passed. What if I burn a flag that only has 49 stars? Is that OK? What if it has 46 stars? 40? 6? What if I swap out the blue field for green?

LXN

Is it ok to eat a cake with an American flag in icing?

This is starting to sound like the transubstantiation debate to me - or Marie Antoinette. Use of proper flag etiquette, which forbids "displaying" Old Glory in such manner, would avoid these sticky questions. wink

I would hate to see my old neighbor, the WW II vet, get hauled in because he can't always turn the light on to his flag.

The only thing that should be hauled in is Old Glory at sunset. Why don't you be a good neighbor and do it for him? He'll appreciate both that act and your showing him kindness and respect for his service.

Well, I don't live at home anymore, and you're dodging my point in any case. That's technically desecration of the flag, why shouldn't we haul him in?

George Sanders to Marilyn Monroe in All About Eve: "You have a point. An idiotic one, but a point."

The chances of your now-former neighbor being hauled in are apparently about as remote as your lending him a helping hand. Instead of hunting for discord in humor, try thinking - and speaking - in more positive terms. In short, instead of lighting off fireworks, just lighten up.

I'm sorry I can't drive an hour and a half home every night to help out my neighbor, this crazy thing called school prevents that.

And I'm sorry, but I tend to get serious when I feel like someone isn't taken the freedoms we are given seriously. We are given the opportunity in our country to voice dissent, even extreme dissent, and to use free expression along with it. I do not agree with flag burning, but I will not allow the voice of those who choose to use it to be silenced.

And on July Fourth, I think we can all appreciate that.

OK Let me understand desecration of the flag. I have my father's flag, a veteran, who passed away a few years ago. I only fly it when it is not raining during the daylight. I have a number of neighbor's who have flags that they never bring in bad weather or at night with no lighting. I am assuming the free thinking police (unless you disagree with me) will arrested my neighbors and I then can purchase their property cheap. Also, I played a great round of golf today, an older gentleman I know was on the course, with a US Flag Shirt. I was well, call the free thinking folks, this guy should be in jail.

There's something about things that aren't flags, that look like flags, aren't the same as flags. I don't know...there's some unwritten rule that makes them different. I've never really had it spelled out for me.

Steve Martin (Charlie) to Daryl Hannah (Roxanne) in Roxanne:

Charlie: Ten more seconds and I'm leaving! Ten-
Roxanne: What did you say?
Charlie: I said ten more seconds and I'm leaving.
Roxanne: Oh.
Charlie: What did you think I said?
Roxanne: I thought you said earn more sessions by sleeving.
Charlie: What does that mean?
Roxanne: I don't know. That's why I asked.

Please make your point. wink

The Court struck down a law banning flag burning in 1989. Amont the majority was Justice Scalia, one of the most brilliant legal minds of the 20th and now 21st century.

Now, question of the day. Which Justice said this in dissent:

Hint: He's the single most liberal current Justice on the Court.

As Senator Feinstein explained, she voted for the amendment because she does not consider this an issue of Freedom of Speech; rather, she looks upon it as an issue of conduct and therefore subject to regulation.

This is a very intriguing point of view, and one that may be more defensible than the free speech aspect.