This Amendment Bans What Now?

With Help from Jon Stewart

Published on June 24, 2005 By NJforever In Politics

(I know this is old news by now, but I haven't been on until now and I wanted to give my two cents on it)

Link

Flag burning you say? Ah. Well, I can see that. After all, like Jon Stewart said: "Today the House passed an amendment to ban the burning of the flag, thus ending the Iraqi insurgency."

What importance does this have? Really? Why do we need an amendment to ban burning of the flag? I already believe that it is protected by the First Amendment. Well, I guess if you can pull together a good argument I might be swayed into its relevance, maybe even supporting it.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

...what? What? They will tell us to pass this amendment? Really? Well, thank you, oh-great-reader-of-minds. Thank you for telling us their political beliefs. I bow before your utter knowledge of what people will support! Oh, but don't worry. That isn't their best argument for it.

"Some say that this amendment violates the first amendment. It does not."

Oh. Well, there we go! All my worries are over. It doesn't! I have seen the light! How could I have not seen it before!? His argument is so superb I cannot help but recognize the complete wisdom! This man should be president! After all, he has some of the best reasons for things I have ever heard!

All right, I'll go a bit lighter on the jokes now. Clearly, I do not support this amendment. But that's not really what I'm picking apart here. It's the reasoning of the representatives that I'm picking apart. I mean, the arguments that I've seen so far, uh, not so good. These are our elected officials! They should be able to debate better than this! If this kind of stuff can win, imagine if someone who could express ideas clearly and rationally got in. My God, they would control Congress! But rest assured, citizens of America, I don't think that will be happening any time soon. A man can dream though, eh?

Comments (Page 2)

Toblerone

on Jun 25, 2005

Heh, I wouldn't know. My aim is to overthrow the very government we speak of.

Not really.

It's good thing you said "Not really" or you'd probably be charged under the Patriot Act.

-----

on Jun 25, 2005

It's good thing you said "Not really" or you'd probably be charged under the Patriot Act

--oh please....with the amount of anti government,usa stuff that has been on JU, there would hardly be anyone left.....

zinkadoodle

on Jun 25, 2005

with the amount of anti government,usa stuff that has been on JU, there would hardly be anyone left.....

Now, that's food for thought, isn't it?

zinkadoodle

on Jun 25, 2005

cuz its close to the 4th of july...there are troops dying overseas...cuz it's an inflammatory non-issue...and cuz this kinda thing almost always works (you notice the same-sex amendment thing disappeared once the election was over in 11/2004?

Yup. Absoulutely. Yup, it's diversionary tactics, and the politicians are pandering to a segment of the population's emotions. And, some people respond accordingly. And, you certainly raise a good point. A major rightie platform was the anti-gay faction, predominantly religious, and quite emotional. I wonder if they're feeling a bit used. And, maybe abused............

NJforever

on Jun 25, 2005

Best article I've read about flag burning. Nice.

Thank you.

It's good thing you said "Not really" or you'd probably be charged under the Patriot Act.

How do you know he hasn't?

--oh please....with the amount of anti government,usa stuff that has been on JU, there would hardly be anyone left.....

Hah...haven't you been noticing the decline?

TheFazz

on Jun 25, 2005

It's good thing you said "Not really" or you'd probably be charged under the Patriot Act.

I've been charged quite a few times, but I was released because I'm not a "Class A Priority" threat, whatever that is.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 26, 2005

What gets me about the whole thing... In the 80s flag burning was a burning issue, especially among conservatives. Today, I'm trying to find more than a handful of conservatives that are hot for the issue.

Apparently the only flaming issue about it now is, maybe we need an amendment banning the banning of burning the flag, so the whole thing will just go up in flames. ;~D

BigDaddyCoolID

on Jun 26, 2005

Here's something I want all of our representatives in Congress to answer for me:

Say by some quirk of fate that this amendment does pass and it becomes law, and flag burning becomes illegal. Well then Mr or Mrs. Patriotism, to dispose of an old flag and send it into retirement, at lease according to the U.S. Scouting Service Project Website: "When the flag is in such condition, through wear or damage, that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, it shall be destroyed in a dignified manner befitting such a symbol. The traditional way is to cut the flag into pieces and burn it in a modest but blazing fire."

If this amendment passes, does this mean that this act of retiring the flag shall now become illegal? Does this mean that we will no longer be able to retire old and tattered flag by burning them? Then what are we to do with them then once they are no longer fit for display? Are we to bury them?, Are we to put them away in some warehouse never to see the light of day again? Or are we to keep displaying the flag no matter how faded, torn or weather beaten it has become?

If that is the case then to me that is just as disrespectful as burning it in protest of...whatever you happen to disagree with. Somehow I don't think that those who are for an anti-flag burning amendment have taken that into consideration.

bakerstreet

on Jun 26, 2005

" What gets me about the whole thing... In the 80s flag burning was a burning issue, especially among conservatives. Today, I'm trying to find more than a handful of conservatives that are hot for the issue."

SOunds a bit harsh, maybe, but a LOT of people have died in 20 years, most from the WW2 generation. One has to wonder how many more 1950's era Republicans were around in the 80's when it was a big issue.

zinkadoodle

on Jun 26, 2005

Apparently the only flaming issue about it now is, maybe we need an amendment banning the banning of burning the flag, so the whole thing will just go up in flames. ;~D

Works for me.

joeKnowledge

on Jun 27, 2005

I just don't see this as the proper use of congress or the constitution. Banning gay marriage was one, now this? I don't like the flag being burned... it disturbs me a lot, but making a law that says you can't burn it because it is the US flag seem a bit rediculous. What if I was trying to say something? What if someone was just protesting something?

I also find it funny to say World Trade Center people who died would want this passed... is it not the very same people who slammed planes into buildings the type to not allow a flag to be burnt (not because of risk or health reasons, but because it is the states flag)?

I think what we fight for is different than what they fight for. Telling me somone died for our country saying they would want this passed is not a thing to say.

joeKnowledge

on Jun 27, 2005

.. plus, I am surpised that this didn't create any disturbance in the blog o sphere.

hmmmph!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!