Question:
The text of the proposed amendment to the US
Constitution is as follows:


"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Should this become part of the Constitution?

Choices:
Yes
No

 

Do we need a constitutional amendment to prohibit something that isn't being done anyway? I think we'd just encourage the practice in other countries, where we are powerless to prevent it.

Why just physical desecration? Why not go the whole way and ban any kind of desecration?

"Why not go the whole way and ban any kind of desecration?"

Because then politicians and others wouldn't be able to wrap themselves in the flag when spouting asinine comments.

'Just because something doesn’t happen is no reason not to outlaw it. Or, for that matter, not to amend the Constitution of the United States.

I am considering introducing an amendment to require everyone in the audience at “Peter Pan” to clap for Tinkerbell. I believe 99.8% of them do, but that’s no reason not to amend the Constitution. I don’t believe we should allow people to be different.'
An Epic Week of Cutting and Running

Maybe only physical desecration should be allowed. I mean, those flags aren't cheap, are they? Any flag burnt is just that few dollars less in the terrorist/liberal/(er... who does burn the flag?) coffers.

With this Congress, Tinkerbell might be banned.
--------
Had the Amendmnt passed (which it did not), of course, it would have only outlawed burning the flag in the US, not the rest of the world, where almost all US flags-burnings take place. I wonder if bush would have ordered extraordinary renditions in order to gather up the offenders in the rest of the world and take them to a secret prison where they could be held without a trial, tortured, and then released when it was found out that we had the wrong guy.


By the way, I read yesterday that several Republican Senate aides said that the only reason that their Senators voted for the amendment was that they were certain it wouldn't pass, but they wanted to be on record as supporting it in time for the upcoming elections. If I can find that reference again, I'll link to it.

Senate Republican aides believe that as many as a dozen self-proclaimed amendment supporters privately opposed the flag burning amendment and were only supporting it for political gain. If the Amendment were to have actually passed, the aides predicted, those same politicians would have voted their conscience, dooming the flag-burning amendment on the Senate floor. - Time
--------
I an sure that a few of the Democrats voted with political reasoning rather than their conscience as well. It really is a shame that politicians act this way, or maybe it is a shame that politicians have to act this way.