Please tell me the courts will shoot this right down

[ceebeegee]

House passes flag-burning amendment.

I am as patriotic as anyone--I literally clutched flags after 9/11 as a security blanket, and still have them all over my apartment. I love the American flag, and I don't want to see it burned. But this is ridiculous. The flag is a symbol--it is not the real thing. "...They accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment"--how is that relevant? Public sentiment is now the trump card in amending the Constitution? If that were the case, why the hell did they pass Prohibition? Isn't the Constitution supposed to give us freedoms--not take them away? Isn't that why Prohibition failed?

(Can the Supreme Court shoot down an Amendment? I dunno--I think only the legislative branch can overturn it, by repealing it.)

Aaaaaugh! I hate these people! This is ridiculous!

Comments

[jayspec.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court can not shoot down an amendment, because an amendment to the Constitution is, by definition, constitutional.

However, the House passing a bill is just the first in a long and high series of hurdles an amendment needs to pass. It must pass the Senate (by 2/3?) and must be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures.

[dje2004.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, there's a good chance that this time, the Senate will pass it, and if they do, it's also likely the states will ratify it.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Where are you hearing that there's a "good chance" in the Senate and that it's "likely" to pass 38 state legislatures? I haven't read anything of the kind. This has come up twice before, been passed in the House, and died in the Senate both times. I'm fairly confident that this'll be strike 3.

[foulpost.livejournal.com]

The previous two attempts did not have the # of republicans in the senate yammering over this.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

It can't pass without Democrat votes, and more than a few.

[foulpost.livejournal.com]

So are you for or against an amendment?

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

I believe I've already stated my opinion in the matter: burn the flag if you like, just kindly do me the favor of wrapping yourself in it first. Saves me the effort of kicking your ass when you're done.

[wonderpanther.livejournal.com]

Jason is correct. The court cannot shoot down an Amendment. That is why an Amendment was attempted to ban gay marriage. With that clearly on the books, courts could no longer interpret the refusal of certain state legislatures to allow same sex marriage as unconstitutional.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Isn't the Constitution supposed to give us freedoms--not take them away?

Well, sort of. Actually, as written, the Constitution primarily lays out the scope and powers of the government, and the Amendments are supposed to limit the government's power over its citizens.

The proposed Amendment reads: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." That's it: one line. This wording, granting a specific power to Congress, is not inconsistent with a number of clauses within the Constitution, nor with some Amendments (I'm thinking particularly of the 16th, which reads: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.") The 16th Amendment didn't create the income tax, it merely empowered Congress to do so; the proposed 28th Amendment would have the same effect with regard to flag burning.

The 18th Amendment was qualitatively different. I'll spare the exact text here, since it's lengthy, but the first clause of it specifically declares the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol to be prohibited. It's the only Amendment that reads that way. As for how it passed, at the time there was a large and vocal (though probably not majority) movement for temperance. (Its repeal a few years later was spearheaded by an even larger and more vocal group of drunken Libertarians...just kidding).

Incidentally, the amendment process is designed to make it precisely as difficult to overturn an Amendment as to ratify one in the first place. Inertia is built into the system. Should this pass, it would take one of two things to overturn it: 2/3 of the House plus 2/3 of the Senate plus 3/4 of the state legislatures, or (heaven forbid!) a Constitutional Convention. The latter requires only 2/3 of the states and cannot be blocked by Congress, by the way, but the option should be feared like nothing else in politics: there are no rules or bounds to what such a convention could do in rewriting the Constitution. (Interestingly, the only time the Constitutional Convention has been used was in the repeal of Prohibition; all 26 other Amendments have been done by the 2/3 - 3/4 method).

[son-of-ottie.livejournal.com]

I also hate them. They suck. And they and their ilk and supporters are doing everything they can at the moment to re-create this country into their personal playground. This country isn't the playground for any one ideology. That's the point of the constitution. Indeed, the United States isn't even only for Americans, but it should be a place for humanity to emulate. It should be "that great successful experiment" which shows how disparate peoples can come together as one.
Instead we have God, the divider. The Great Lover of Slavery and Retribution!
And make no mistake, these people in government who purport to act in the name of God do not. They know better and they know just how to control the masses and what hot-button issues to attack in order to weild their personal power for their own gain.
THAT is why I want to leave for Holland or Denmark. I'll give England a shot though. Carlos says maybe one day we'd go live in London. Who knows?

But I do know this: I do not personally want to spend the rest of my life trying to change the minds of filthy bigots who've usurped my government. I'd rather spend my days happy.
In short, fuck the motherfuckers and all the motherfucker's compadres.