Flag Worship

by liberal atheist, Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 02:07:45 PM EDT

The ammendment is not going to pass in the Senate. It has more votes than last time, 65, but it is still not enough. The three categories in this diary put the vote count at 61-29. The ten Senators not accounted for in the three categories in this diary are: Cantwell (D-WA), Carper (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-FL), Obama (D-IL), Pryor (D-AR) and Stabenow (D-MI). I do want to know which of these four support this sad ammendment--Chris

Note in advance: I know this is a popular topic and I am sorry if it is a repeat.

The "Flag Desecration" Amendment has passed the House of Representatives again. Click on the link to see how your Congress member voted. The Amendment has 53 cosponsors in the Senate, 14 short of the 67 votes needed to pass. The last time the amendment was considered in the Senate, it failed 63-37 (four votes short of 2/3 needed).

The flag amendment is likely to come up for a vote in the Senate again some time soon (it may be very soon, or several months off). I have placed Senators into three categories: those who voted for the amendment in 2000, those who voted against it in 2000, and those who were not in the Senate in 2000 but are cosponsors. Any Senator not listed has joined the Senate since 2000 and is not a cosponsor. These Senators may be swing votes and should be contacted.

Voted for in 2000:
Allard (R-CO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Voted against in 2000:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee, L. (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT) note: now an independent
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Sponsors who joined since 2000:
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Isakson (R-GA)
Martinez (R-FL)
Murkowsi (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

[Update] 8:10 PM EDT I see that my first diary has made the front page. Chris predicts that the amendment will fail. My guess is that he is right, but this is likely to be close. Here is how the pro-amendment Citizens Flag Alliance calls it. Below I have listed how they have called the ten new nonsponsors. If their prediction is correct, then there are 65 supporters, 34 opponents, and one (Obama) who is undecided, in which case the amendment will fall short by a very narrow margin.

Mark Pryor (D-AR): no
Ken Salazar (D-CO): yes
Thomas Carper (D-CT): no
Bill Nelson (D-FL): yes
Barack Obama (D-IL): unsure
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): yes
Mark Dayton (D-MN): yes
John Corzine (D-NJ): no
Hillary Clinton (D-NY): no
Maria Cantwell (D-WA): no

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

Sort by

permalink

this is my first diary

Feel free to give feedback accordingly.

by liberal atheist 2005-06-22 12:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Guys

Defending the right to burn a flag when guys are dropping like flies......

Good politics that doesn't make.

by Bruticus 2005-06-22 01:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Guys

How about trying to outlaw the burning of the flag while people are dropping like flies? Doesn't Congress have something better to do than this?

by Valatan 2005-06-22 03:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Guys

Stop questioning the assumptions built into the centrist mindset. You'll only confuse everyone. People might start thinking that taking principled stands on issues could be popular.

by paperwight 2005-06-22 03:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Guys

Unprincipled and centrist go together?

Who says this is true?

Sorry, but this is a simplistic generalization.

by v2aggie2 2005-06-22 08:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Guys

(a) I was talking about the assumption that Democrats have to go along with every symbolic vote that the Republicans want to use as a wedge issue, or they're "taking the bait" -- that taking a stand in favor of, y'know, freedom of speech is a stupid political move, because you have to avoid appearing controversial. Feh.

(b) I keep waiting for "centrists" as distinct from fighting moderates like Howard Dean (and he is a moderate) to tell me what stands they're really willing to take and who they won't sell out. All I ever hear from "centrists" is that one should move closer to the Republican Extremist position. As the success of the Republican Party over the last 30 years shows, moving toward your opponent mostly legitimizes their position.

As far as I can tell, a self-described "centrist" just means someone who thinks that the compromise position between "death and cake" is "amputation and a cookie".

by paperwight 2005-06-22 09:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Guys

Well, I've never distinguished between centrists and moderates, so perhaps it's just semantics.

Personally, I've stopped caring about any of these terms on the left in the middle.
I don't really fit into any neat category, probably. I'm just a Democrat

by v2aggie2 2005-06-22 09:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Guys

Well, as you examine your positions, all I can do is beg you to take the position you believe is the right thing to do, not the triangulated what you think the market will bear position.

by paperwight 2005-06-22 09:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Guys

Well, I've always done that.
I do have priorities among my positions, because not everything can happen at once.

My biggest thing, however, is results.
Too often, this seems to get ignored.

by v2aggie2 2005-06-22 09:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Guys

My biggest thing, however, is results.
Too often, this seems to get ignored.

Yeah, I hear this a lot. It always sounds like code for "sell out the gays, maybe some of the women, make sure you give the big corporate PACs what they want and you still won't be quite as bad as the Republicans". I try not to hear it that way when people who are obviously of good will say it, but it keeps coming true.

by paperwight 2005-06-22 10:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Guys

A code word?

Well, results are expected in every other part of life...why are politics exempted?

It is the lack of emphasis on results that has turned people off of politics. And they should be turned off.

As for selling out gays and women, what are the examples?

by v2aggie2 2005-06-23 09:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Guys

Question becomes if this passed, will congress also go after the people who violate flag rules. People who let the flag touch the ground. People who leave it in the rain. People who fly at night without a spotlight shining on the flag. All of these are unintentional desecrations of the flag. So those idiots who say Love it or Leave it who do these things should hauled into Jail if this passed.

And what about making hats and shirts out of the flag. Some could find a commercial whoring like that as desecrating the flag.

by yitbos96bb 2005-06-22 04:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

hmmm

Chris,

Why don't you think it'll pass, it seems damn close. I think it'll pass Cries

by ben114 2005-06-22 02:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

I agree with Nadler

Critics accused the amendment's supporters of exploiting the attacks to trample the right to free speech.

"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents." said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center.

This is about as lame as a Constitutional Amendment can get. It doesn't ban flag burning. It gives Congress the authority to prohibit desecration of the flag.

What the hell does that mean? Whenever actual legislation has been considered, one of the drafting problems was how to make desecration illegal without making clothing with the flag on it illegal. Are flag boxer shorts desecration? How about a flag leather jacket or flag T-shirt? What if you throw your flag T-shirt on the ground?

Symbolic speech like burning the flag is perfectly legitimate expression of contempt for authority. Usually it is contempt for war mongers who wrap themselves in the flag while they ignore the Constitution. Duke Cunningham is a very good example.

At some point politicians have to learn to speak truth to the American people about what's important and what's emotional B.S.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-22 02:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I agree with Nadler

Vagueness is a major concern here. I have no idea what might be construed as flag desecration. The amendment would give Congress the power to pass a law, and that law MIGHT be more specific than the amendment. The Supreme Court has a long history of interpreting the Constitution in broad ways. Consider, for instance, the kind of laws that have been permitted as falling under the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to regulate interstate and international commerce. Both the terms "flag" and "desecrate" could be construed broadly or narrowly. Would it apply to a flag t-shirt? A cake designed to look like the flag? For that matter, what counts as desecration? These are good questions to pose to Senators who may be on the fence.

by liberal atheist 2005-06-22 03:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

According to the AP

Cantwell and Pryor are opposed. Clinton just annouced she was opposed. Salazar is uncommitted.
Given his voting record, I would be shocked if Obama voted for it. (check out his Father's Day sermon if you haven't read it... awesome. I hope he stays clean, cause he would make a hell of a President someday.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/flag_burning;_ylt=AvUZu3CDS69ZVxmblbt2CbUEtbAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlY wMlJVRPUCUl

by yitbos96bb 2005-06-22 03:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: According to the AP

Where would one find this Obama speech?

by JCarlFinn5 2005-06-22 07:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Just watch...

61-32 according to the AP and this list. Leaves 7 left. Obama I would bet votes against, so if that happens it puts the vote 61-33 and we just need 1 more vote. The AP has 35 votes against in informal polling. My guess is it is close but doesn't pass. THis is "Dems hate America" crap, given that only 1 flag is recorded as being burned in protest this year... and this info was provided by a group for the amendment.

by yitbos96bb 2005-06-22 03:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I agree...

Why would you support their right to burn a flag but try to stop them from doing it? Aren't you violating their first amendment rights? Wouldn't it be better to walk away or voice your objections rather than interfere?

by yitbos96bb 2005-06-22 04:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Obama Speech (OT)

Sorry Off topic but I mentioned it earlier. Check it out. THis guy rocks!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0506220036jun22,1,7605447.story?coll=chi-news-hed

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0506220037jun22,1,7998664.story?coll=chi-news-hed& ;ctrack=2&cset=true

by yitbos96bb 2005-06-22 04:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Speech (OT)

That is an absolutely fantastic speech. It carries the message that democrats must use for the next generation: work your butt off, and we'll give you everything we can to help you; poverty by sloth is your fault, but affluence through work is what we all must strive for.

by Hannula 2005-06-22 08:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

This is dumb.

I'm a vet and I could care less either way. Whether the amendment passes or doesn't has no effect on me. Personally I could care less what people burn as long as it isn't money (which could be spent for a good cause).

I wouldn't burn a flag myself because I think those kinds of displays are melodramatic and accomplishes nothing but some carnal satisfaction. But I could care less if someone else does so...big deal. If they do, so what? It accomplishes nothing.

What next, an amendment on burning effigies of the president?

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-06-22 05:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This is dumb.

Right on. I can't believe the wingnuts are dragging out this old canard again. It's one of the stupidest Constitutional amendments ever proposed. It diminishes the Constitution as well as the flag.

This is not a burning issue with most voters.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-22 08:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This is dumb.

don't dems keep draggin out their pet issues too? Its a universal practice in politics. Show me a politician who tells his base to behave... they all run scared.

by Paul Goodman 2005-06-23 01:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

They miss the point...as usual

People that try to prevent others from burning the flag think they are in some way protecting it. The problem is that forced respect is not respect. If I have the right to burn a flag but choose not to out of love of country etc, thats respect. But if I want to burn it but dont because there is a law against it, have they really accomplished anything? Am I respecting the flag or simply denied speach, denied the ability to disrespect it. Whats next, you must stand for the national anthem, you must salute the flag when you see it raised, you must recite the pledge, every word of it---no skipping over the God silliness.

This is a political game to make those that dont support the amendment look bad to voters. It a shame too many voters are ignorant and wont see it for what it is. Key is, politically, to make sure it doesnt pass but keep it quiet doing so.

This is also a part of the process leading this nation closer and closer to full on fascism. Ive believed for a long time thats what we face here. A key part of fascism is extreme nationalism. Next thing will be the national youth movement. Oh yeah, I know, its bad to bring up the reference, thats because it hits too close to home. And thats why they use it to describe liberals, to use it so much that people become immune to the term.

http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Politics/fascism.htm

The most patriotic thing Americans can do is to allow dissent in all its forms, to include those that wish to burn the flag to add exclamation to their message. Sick thing is I have no desire to ever burn it...until they ban flag burning. Then I honestly may very well do just that...and I don't want to.

by jrflorida 2005-06-22 06:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: They miss the point...as usual

We had to destroy freedom in order to save it.

by wayward 2005-06-23 03:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Another arguement:

Just thought I give everyone the conservative arguement that I have heard from many people against the flag burning amendment.

"I bought it I ought to be able to whatever the hell I want to do with it."

Also if this was about not wanting flag burning, why not just make the flag out of non-flammable material.

by Painter2004 2005-06-22 08:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Another arguement:

hmm...nonflammable flags. I never thought about it that way before.

by liberal atheist 2005-06-22 09:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

What's Next?

A ban on criticizing the Republican Party

by SRconbio 2005-06-22 09:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What's Next?

The media has already self-imposed this on themselves

by v2aggie2 2005-06-22 09:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

The "desecration" commandment/amendment

"Desecration" of political symbols?
The above post includes the final vote breakdown for the flag desecration amendment in the House of Representatives this week. It also has a contact list of the five Democratic senators who are sponsoring the desecration commandment/amendment in the U.S. senate.
Also:

Lynch mob 13 senate committee assignments
I have made a list of senate committee assignments for the 13 U.S. senators who did not openly sponsor the Lynching Apology resolution.

by aahpat 2005-06-23 05:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

aren't these similar?

Both congressional actions you mention are symbolic with no practical impact on peoples lives. When are people going to concern themselves exclusively with the big issues of economics, resources, and war? More importantly, when are so-called activists going to stop calling for tit-for-tat symbolism in government? Pick one or two issues (war and economy) and stick with those.

by Paul Goodman 2005-06-23 01:31PM | 0 recs