Refuges, scoundrels, and the flag amendment

November 14, 2005

When Bush used Veterans Day to lash out at Democrats, it was unseemly. When he took a few cheap shots at John Kerry, it was embarrassing. (Was Clinton going after Bob Dole a full year after the ’96 election?) But to truly appreciate the dismal point Bush’s presidency has reached, consider the president’s new-found interest in a constitutional amendment against flag-burning.

“I’ve joined with the veterans groups to call on Congress to protect the flag of the United States in the Constitution of the United States. In June, the House of Representatives voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. I urge the United States Senate to pass this important amendment.”

How important is it to the president? Looking back at the past year, Friday was only the second time he’s mentioned the amendment publicly (the last reference came in August). Over the past two years, Scott McClellan hasn’t mentioned the amendment once. I guess it depends on what the meaning of “important” is.

Is there any chance Bush’s support for this ridiculous, cynical scheme has anything to do with his approval ratings falling into the mid-30s? Could the White House really be so desperate that they’d start emphasizing the flag amendment as a way to boost their standing? Apparently so. It’s almost enough to make me feel sorry for these guys.

And speaking of the flag amendment, now is probably a good time for an update on the status of the effort.

When we last visited the subject, the measure had 58 co-sponsors and observers on both sides of the fight said the effort is a vote or two shy of 67, which for supporters, is the magic number to pass the Senate and go on to the states. Since then, nothing’s changed and supporters have not found any new allies.

Bush’s cheerleading notwithstanding, we probably won’t hear about the measure again for several more months — because the Republicans are hoping to exploit it as a campaign issue.

The Republican-led Senate is unlikely to vote on a flag-burning amendment this fall, but the measure will almost certainly hit the floor months before next year’s elections.

Republicans will use the proposed amendment to the Constitution as political ammunition in 2006. Several targeted Democrats in the upper chamber oppose changing the Constitution to prohibit flag burning, including Sens. Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Kent Conrad (N.D.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.).

Yes, after six years of Republicans dominating every branch of the federal government, the one thing they’re really counting on in the 2006 cycle is a vote on a constitutional amendment that addresses a problem that does not exist.

Will anyone actually buy into such cynical nationalism? I guess we’ll find out in about a year.

This is the most ridiculous, non-important piece of legislation to ever come down the pike and will not affect Americans in the least. Which is why it’s time to pass it and take this “weapon” out of the hands of the Repugs.

I’d like to see every Dem support this and let it be put to a vote across the land. Ultimately, it means nothing and won’t make citizens lives better or worse.

Then, I’d like to see the Executive branch prosecute every Repug wearing an American flag lapel pin for “desecrating the flag”.

Then the Dems should put up an Amendment banning the use of torture.

  • Do they know that banning flag burning won’t stop people in other countries from burning our flag?

    If Dems are smart they’ll call this what this is– a constiuntional amendment offered as a solution to a problem that doesn’t even exist. Dems should use this amendment to talk about how they want to change America’s foreign policies so other countries don’t want to burn our flag, tackle real issues instead of totally hollow, time-wasters like this one.

  • Unlike previous efforts to ban flag desecration, this one could be a nice litmus test– will wrapping themselves up in the flag even help them at this point? Outrage isn’t necessary in response to this movement. There is a lot of fun to be had with this amendment, such as valid points about who burns the most American flags per year (the boy scouts) which only proves that this is about the government attempting to censor anti-government speech at a time when the government itself is *very* unpopular.

  • unfortunately, this might work for some people. Probably not a lot of people, because most people don’t think the R’s are honest, but some will fall for it.

    I predict that the R’s will go looking for radical lefties, and actually encourage them to burn flags, in an attempt to create the issue that their amendment “solves”. Of course they won’t do this out in the open, but they were smart enough to support Nader, so watch for it.

  • This fits pretty nicely into our emerging theme that the substance of national policy–on everything from whether we condone “interrogation” practices more fit for terrorists and murderers than a free and enlightened people to real economic security and opportunity for working families–is more important than the empty gestures and packaging so characteristic of this failed Republican government.

    Besides, the media might actually tell the story from our perspective on this one. They’re sick of the bullshit too.

  • This will serve as a convenient ball of catnip for the Retardicans who will fool themselves into thinking they’re working on something great and important. While they’re puffing their chests out, though, the country will continue to go to ruin and the public might just finally see how pathetically shallow the whole exercise is. We can hope.

  • OHHHH focusing on the important issues is he?

    Nice to see that after bungling things that matter he moves onto something that won’t kill him in the polls if it fails, but is something he can use to make himself look better that has little chance of going somewhere while he is in office. Truly cynical. And so not a surprise

  • I say do it. Let’s refurbish that dusty old Constitution. While we’re at it, let’s codify the Freedom of Information Act into the constitution, or establish a “Right to Privacy” clause, maybe toss in Gridlock’s prohibition of torture for good measure.

    But make it a package deal. The campagin slogan could be “One right added for every one taken away.”

  • I thought the Supreme Court already found this unconstitutional back in 1990 or so (I’ve just been rereading “Parliament of Whores” and it comes up.)

  • What an incredibly stupid and futile ammendment. Are the acting parties aware that in the United States Flag Code it reads under sec. 8(k),

    “The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, PREFERABLY BY BURNING.”

    • Comments are closed.