Re: Republicans wrap themselves in folly
- From: "Frank Arthur" <Art@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:39:17 -0400
Is there anyone who can tell me what the definition of an American Flag is?
Only idiots could consider a flag law without knowing what a flag is!
"Jay Robert" <jr373@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lUBog.164$vt2.119@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the Senate, Covering Themselves in Old Glory
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post
Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Page A02
The Citizens Flag Alliance, a group pushing for the Senate this week to
pass a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, just reported an
alarming, 33 percent increase in the number of flag-desecration incidents
this year.
The number has increased to four, from three.
The naive among us may have trouble appreciating how four flag-burning
episodes would constitute a constitutional crisis. But the men and women
of the Senate, ever alert to emerging threats, are on the case.
"I think of the flag as a symbol of what veterans fought for," Sen. Arlen
Specter (R-Pa.) said as he opened the debate yesterday, "what they
sustained wounds for, what they sustained loss of limbs for and what they
sustained loss of life for."
In pursuit of this urgent matter, floor leader Specter mustered all manner
of argument: the military service of his brother, Morton; his
brother-in-law's service in the Pacific; his father Harry's service in the
Argonne; his mother's emigration from Ukraine; his own stateside service
during the Korean War; a pickup-truck accident his father once had with
his sister; bicycle rides he took as a 7-year-old in Kansas; the
"treachery of Mussolini"; the light casualties sustained during the
Persian Gulf War, and a trip he made to VA hospitals 15 years ago.
"I think it's important to focus on the basic fact that the text of the
First Amendment, the text of the Constitution, the text of the Bill of
Rights is not involved," Specter argued. The Judiciary Committee chairman
did not explain how he could add 17 words to the Constitution without
altering its text.
Fortunately, the Senate will have plenty of time to discuss that matter.
The chamber has scheduled up to four days of debate on the flag-burning
amendment this week. If that formula -- one day of Senate debate for each
incident of flag burning this year -- were to be applied to other matters,
the Senate would need to schedule 12 days of debate to contemplate the
number of years before Medicare goes broke, 335 days of debate for each
service member killed in Iraq this year and 11 million days of debate on
the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the country.
Unfortunately, the Senate has only 49 days left on its legislative
calendar for the year.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) saw the calculus somewhat differently.
"They say that flag burning is a rare occurrence; it is not that rare," he
told the chamber. An aide hoisted a large blue poster detailing 17
incidents of flag desecration over three years. Hatch, citing "an ongoing
offense against common decency," read them all. "That's just mentioning
some that we know of; there's a lot more than that, I'm sure," he said.
Never mind that, in most cases, the perpetrators could be prosecuted for
theft or vandalism. For Hatch, this was sufficient evidence of the need
for an amendment. "Now, I have to tell you," he vouched, "the American
people are aggrieved."
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) countered with a different set of figures.
"There have been only seven acts of flag desecration annually in America
in the last six years, so to argue that we have this growing trend toward
desecration and burning our flag defies the facts," he said. "In fact, it
rarely, if ever, happens. And so why are we about to change the handiwork
and fine contribution to America of Thomas Jefferson?"
Next on the floor, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) presented yet another
set of statistics. "Exceedingly rare," he concluded. "Two hundred cases in
215 years. Less than 10 cases over the last 10 years."
But Durbin and Dodd were in the minority in their inability to recognize
the threat to the flag. Nearly two-thirds of the senators --
tantalizingly close to the number needed to pass the amendment -- are
expected to vote for the flag-burning amendment this week, including Sen.
Harry Reid (Nev.), the Democratic leader.
And the pro-amendment crowd is armed with powerful constitutional
arguments. "Ever since the Boy Scouts first taught me how to care for our
flag over 40 years ago, it has always held a special place in my heart,"
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said in a press release
yesterday.
That's not to say the senators were feeling energetic as they took up the
amendment. The day's session started at 2 p.m., but by 2:21, there was no
senator on the floor to speak, and the chamber went into a quorum call --
its equivalent of a nap -- for the next hour.
At 4 p.m., Specter tried to wake the chamber. After a brief tour of the
legal issues, the Pennsylvania moderate tossed aside his prepared remarks,
noting that while they were "excellent staff work," he didn't want to read
them. Instead, he tried for the personal appeal: treating the almost empty
chamber to some family history.
"My father, Harry Specter, was hit by shrapnel in the legs," Specter
disclosed. "But had the shrapnel hit him a little higher, Harry Specter
might have been in one of those [European] cemeteries and he wouldn't have
been my father, and I wouldn't have been."
And the urgent work of amending the Constitution would have fallen to
somebody else.
.
- References:
- Republicans wrap themselves in folly
- From: Jay Robert
- Republicans wrap themselves in folly
- Prev by Date: Republicans wrap themselves in folly
- Next by Date: Muslim kidnappers make Palestinians suffer!
- Previous by thread: Republicans wrap themselves in folly
- Next by thread: Muslim kidnappers make Palestinians suffer!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
