Flag burning amendment headed to Senate floor.

[southsider2k5]

How's Somalia doing?

 

OH yeah, we deserted them as soon as the going got tough...

 

BTW, I am embarassed that this bill is even coming up. I guess freedom of speech just means freedom for things that are nice. I am hoping that someone at least attachest a line in their about banning boy bands or something productive.

[Rex Kickass]

SS:

 

What Kip is referring to is what is going on now. The Clinton administration didn't ignore Somalia after 1993, it provided some limited support to a couple of the warlords in the country to keep an islamist insurgency from gaining strength through armed struggle. The current administration expanded the program giving more aid financially and militarily to non islamist warlords. The problem is that the Islamist people just took Mogadishu and most of Somalia.

[beautox]

OH yeah, we deserted them as soon as the going got tough...

 

BTW, I am embarassed that this bill is even coming up. I guess freedom of speech just means freedom for things that are nice. I am hoping that someone at least attachest a line in their about banning boy bands or something productive.

 

and emo kids, dont forget emo kids, everyone hates emo kids, ...im a emo kid.

[jasonxctf]

This would be the first amendment to restrict behavior protected in the Bill of Rights.

 

 

this is an important point to not be forgotton here.

[Balance]

Is there a rash of flag-burnings going on in the US that I'm simply not aware of? Is there a need for this amendment?

[Rex Kickass]

Well, I don't know about you but I've heard that flag burners are going to families' houses at night and casting a spell turning straight marriages into gay marriages. It's really quite scary.

Edited June 16, 2006 by Rex Kickass

[kapkomet]

Well, I don't know about you but I've heard that flag burners are going to families' houses at night and casting a spell turning straight marriages into gay marriages. It's really quite scary.

hubba hubba

 

 

By the way, STOP IT. The amendment is NOT needed.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

SS:

 

What Kip is referring to is what is going on now. The Clinton administration didn't ignore Somalia after 1993, it provided some limited support to a couple of the warlords in the country to keep an islamist insurgency from gaining strength through armed struggle. The current administration expanded the program giving more aid financially and militarily to non islamist warlords. The problem is that the Islamist people just took Mogadishu and most of Somalia.

 

 

Yeah and why did that happen?! Because we cut and ran as soon as the going got tough over there. It was that very act that gave Osama Bin Laden the impression that the US didn't have the balls to stick it out in a tough fight. God, you people aren't very perceptive are you?

[WCSox]

By the way, STOP IT. The amendment is NOT needed.

 

Not to mention the one to "protect heterosexual marriage" (i.e., ban gay marriage). This isn't what the framers had in mind.

[kapkomet]

Not to mention the one to "protect heterosexual marriage" (i.e., ban gay marriage). This isn't what the framers had in mind.

Agree 10000000%.

[YASNY]

To the people in favor of this amendment ... Do you realize that changing the constitution in anyway requires a constitutional convention? Do you realize that if and when a convention is called, they will not just vote on this one item and adjourn? Do you realize that once the convention begins, anything and everything is fair game? They don't have to go through this tough criteria on each issue, just the first one. Once the convention starts, they could theoretically gut the constitution as it currently stands.

 

In my opinion, this is a relatively piss poor issue to risk exposing the constitution to the whims this group of politicians. This doesn't even come close to justifying a constitutional convention. Look past the jingoism for a minute and think about the can of worms that can be opened here.

[Balance]

To the people in favor of this amendment ... Do you realize that changing the constitution in anyway requires a constitutional convention? Do you realize that if and when a convention is called, they will not just vote on this one item and adjourn? Do you realize that once the convention begins, anything and everything is fair game? They don't have to go through this tough criteria on each issue, just the first one. Once the convention starts, they could theoretically gut the constitution as it currently stands.

 

In my opinion, this is a relatively piss poor issue to risk exposing the constitution to the whims this group of politicians. This doesn't even come close to justifying a constitutional convention. Look past the jingoism for a minute and think about the can of worms that can be opened here.

Actually, you don't need a convention to amend the constitution. All it takes is a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to propose the amendment. Then, 3/4 of the states must approve of the amendment.

 

A convention may also be convened, but it is not needed. Here's the text from Article V of the Constitution, which deals with amendments:

 

Article V.

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

(From the National Archives)

[southsider2k5]

To the people in favor of this amendment ... Do you realize that changing the constitution in anyway requires a constitutional convention? Do you realize that if and when a convention is called, they will not just vote on this one item and adjourn? Do you realize that once the convention begins, anything and everything is fair game? They don't have to go through this tough criteria on each issue, just the first one. Once the convention starts, they could theoretically gut the constitution as it currently stands.

 

In my opinion, this is a relatively piss poor issue to risk exposing the constitution to the whims this group of politicians. This doesn't even come close to justifying a constitutional convention. Look past the jingoism for a minute and think about the can of worms that can be opened here.

 

Thankfully the process is long, drawnout and difficult, as to keep crap like this from be coming constitutionally protected.

[Rex Kickass]

A convention is not a requirement for changing the constitution. There has only been one constitutional convention in the history of the United States, and that's the one that wrote the constitution and bill of rights. Everything else has been done through supermajorities in the Congress, Senate and ratification in the state house.

[Balance]

Thankfully the process is long, drawnout and difficult, as to keep crap like this from be coming constitutionally protected.

Agreed.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

A convention is not a requirement for changing the constitution. There has only been one constitutional convention in the history of the United States, and that's the one that wrote the constitution and bill of rights. Everything else has been done through supermajorities in the Congress, Senate and ratification in the state house.

 

Yeppers. Right you are. All thats needed to make this permanent is 67 Senate Votes, 2/3rds of the House and 38 states to ratify it within 7 years.

[YASNY]

A convention is not a requirement for changing the constitution. There has only been one constitutional convention in the history of the United States, and that's the one that wrote the constitution and bill of rights. Everything else has been done through supermajorities in the Congress, Senate and ratification in the state house.

 

I stand corrected.

[Balta1701]

A convention is not a requirement for changing the constitution. There has only been one constitutional convention in the history of the United States, and that's the one that wrote the constitution and bill of rights. Everything else has been done through supermajorities in the Congress, Senate and ratification in the state house.

However, according to Novakula, there are some people who are actually considering trying to call a constitutional convention to pass the "gays are icky" amendment.

[Soxbadger]

Well its been almost half a day and no one has done any research to disprove my theory that the Supreme Court could review an amendment.

 

Thus I think the end result of this amendment being passed (which I don't think it will) would be the striking of the Amendment as unconstitutional. And as a result the judiciary being given even more power.

 

Anyways I stand by my previous comments that if you ban flag burning, then you have to ban swastika's, etc. And when does it end. A society of the free allows dissent, and as long as they are not hurting anyone, I can see no reason why the govt should destroy the very freedom the first amendment was designed to protect, the right to speak against the govt and not fear prosecution.

 

Although this law would have been really popular with the Hitler's, Stalin's, of the world.

[BHAMBARONS]

Well its been almost half a day and no one has done any research to disprove my theory that the Supreme Court could review an amendment.

 

 

Well it has never happened before and no I would not think they could as this would be amendment. They can interpret those amendments but not overturn them. This is a huge process 66 senators (Which means 11 Democrats must support) and 38 states (which means 8 blue states must support). So I doubt this gets passed.

Edited June 19, 2006 by BHAMBARONS

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well its been almost half a day and no one has done any research to disprove my theory that the Supreme Court could review an amendment.

 

Thus I think the end result of this amendment being passed (which I don't think it will) would be the striking of the Amendment as unconstitutional. And as a result the judiciary being given even more power.

 

Anyways I stand by my previous comments that if you ban flag burning, then you have to ban swastika's, etc. And when does it end. A society of the free allows dissent, and as long as they are not hurting anyone, I can see no reason why the govt should destroy the very freedom the first amendment was designed to protect, the right to speak against the govt and not fear prosecution.

 

Although this law would have been really popular with the Hitler's, Stalin's, of the world.

 

 

I don't really see how the Supreme Court could ever strike down a part of the Constitution as unconstitutional. If something becomes part of the Constitution then it is, by virtue of its being included, Constitutional. The whole purpose of making something an amendment is to make something the established law of the land and place it beyond the reach of any court of law. That's why it's so difficult to make something an amendment in the 1st place. Note that the prohibition amendment, when they wanted to abolish it, required another amendment to do so as no court could touch it.

 

BTW. Your Hitler and Stalin references are REALLY weak and your tyranny of the majority arguments are even more laughable.

[Soxbadger]

Nuke,

 

Please find me a specific clause in the constitution that says, the constitution is not reviewable by the Supreme Court.

 

I could not find such language. And your idea that just because something is approved by an amendment makes it constitutional is weak and without merit. If congress and 3/4 of the states passed a law that said:

 

"Islam is the only faith of the United States, any person who practices another religion besides Islam will be arrested."

 

You are saying the Supreme Court would have its hands tied? Look to Article III of the constitution:

 

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

 

It says ALL cases. And no where in Article III is the Supreme Court limited in its power from interpreting or striking down an Amendment (we already know that the supreme court can interpret amendments, why they couldnt strike them down seems odd.)

 

When you go to Article V Amendments, there is no clause, provision, or mention that the Supreme Court can not over rule an Amendment. By putting the 2 articles of the constitution together, Article III saying the Supreme Court has the power to hear all cases without limitation, and Article V where the constitution does not place any protection for amendments from judicial review, the only conclusion that can be reached is that Amendments are able to be judicially reviewed.

 

Now the greatness of this whole excersise in constitutional law is, that in the end, it is the Supreme Court who will decide whether or not they have the power. So it will be up to the justices on the court to decide where does the judicial power end. I am not about to go and research all justices opinions on the extent of the judiciarys power.

 

The only thing laughable here is the fact that you refuse to bring any evidence, facts, or otherwise to support your stance. You base your entire post on "I believe" an opinion, and then bring no text to support it.

 

The only reason you think the Hitler references are weak is because they completely destroy about half of the viewpoints you hold so dearly.

 

My early quote where I changed the words slightly shows just how closely you parrallel Nazi views.

[jackie hayes]

Yes, if that amendment passed, the SC would certainly "have its hands tied", in the sense that they would have to condone punishment for anyone who does not follow Islam. (Although, technically, it just says nonbelievers must be arrested -- so they could just be trivially arrested once and let go, and that would satisfy the amendment.)

 

You seem to be assuming that certain parts of the Constitution have more authority than others, which is just nonsense. If anything, the more recent the amendment, the MORE weight it receives. From the Federalist papers:

 

This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.

Any two items in the Constitution are "of an EQUAL authority", so the new amendment would take effect.

Edited June 16, 2006 by jackie hayes

[WCSox]

Although this law would have been really popular with the Hitler's, Stalin's, of the world.

 

You're going to have to do better than that if you want to be an ACLU attorney.

Edited June 16, 2006 by WCSox

[Soxbadger]

Wcsox,

 

Yah just noticed I put possessive there for no reason, but its just an internet board I dont use my trusty wordperfect or spell check even.

 

Jackiehayes,

 

Actually I do not assume anything. I am reading the 4 corners of the document (the constitution) and applying the rules that the document itself has. There is absolutely no provision or statement that says the Constitution is immune from judicial review. I do not think it makes sense either as an Amendment is legislative in nature and the judiciary is specifically empowered to determine the constitutionality of legislation.

 

The biggest problem is you can not challange the constitutionality before its passed because that would not be ripe.