On Monday June 26, 2006 the Peoria Journal Star published an editorial against a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the desecration of the American flag as a form of protest. The paper also had a small article about the issue on page A2. It was six paragraphs long and the by-line was AP (the Associated Press).
I don’t know what material if any was edited out of the article. The article as published had no positive comments in relation to the need for or desirability of the proposed Amendment.
The first two paragraphs declared “Senate leaders in both parties said Sunday there is no need for a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning, which the Senate plans to debate this week.
Protecting the First Amendment’s right to free speech takes precedent, agreed Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., each their party’s second-ranking Senate leader. Both said they would oppose the flag-burning amendment.”
Repeating what I said in last night’s blog, the First Amendment does not say that flag burning is a part of our free speech rights. For most of our history, flag burning was not considered a part of our free speech rights. Our libertine Supreme Court (The direction of the Court is now changing because of the two appointments by President Bush.) ruled in one of many obscene decisions that flag burning was a form of protected free speech. Anyone who claims that the First Amendment protects flag burning without clarifying the circumstance is skewing the truth.
The truth is that every Senator who votes against the proposed Amendment is not “protecting the First Amendment’s right to free speech.” Rather, the Senators are protecting the political decision of a libertine Supreme Court which altered the provisions of the First Amendment as established by historical precedent and the intent of the original writers of the Amendment. The protection was not recognized until the 1960’s and 70’s. The Court changed the intent of the First Amendment to suit their desires—the Court ignored the intent of the original writers of the Amendment.
From reading the first four paragraphs of the article, the obvious conclusion would seem to be that the proposed Amendment has no chance of being passed. The only information given is from those who oppose the Amendment. The article declares that the Amendment is not needed. The article implies that the Amendment is not supported by either Democrats or Republicans. The article quotes Senator McConnell who suggests that the First Amendment has protected flag burning for over 200 years—which, of course, is incorrect and terribly misleading. One might even wonder why it is being considered at all considering the information given.
But wait! The sixth and last paragraph completely changed the importance of the upcoming vote. “’It is within one vote of passage. And I think that’s unfortunate,’ Durbin said.” What!!! It is possible that the Amendment might pass!
How is that possible? It takes a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to pass a Constitutional Amendment. If all Senators vote on the question, it takes 67 votes to pass the proposal. There are 66 Senators who might vote for the Amendment? Reading the first four paragraphs, I don’t know how anyone would arrive at that conclusion. Do you think the article was just a little bit slanted in opposition to the Amendment?
The above was written earlier today. According to WGN television news at 9:00 p.m., the Senate has voted on the proposed Amendment. 66 Senators voted in favor of the Amendment. The Amendment missed approval by one vote. This, of course, means that a majority of Senators voted for the Amendment and some Democrats voted for the Amendment.
I don’t know who voted against it. My guess is the usual libertine Democrat suspects. My guess is that both Senators Kerry and Kennedy of Massachusetts voted against the Amendment. Senator Durbin of Illinois was quoted in the article as opposed to the Amendment. My guess is that Senator Obama of Illinois also voted against the Amendment. Is it time to start voting libertines out of the Senate and the House of Representatives?
I don’t know what material if any was edited out of the article. The article as published had no positive comments in relation to the need for or desirability of the proposed Amendment.
The first two paragraphs declared “Senate leaders in both parties said Sunday there is no need for a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning, which the Senate plans to debate this week.
Protecting the First Amendment’s right to free speech takes precedent, agreed Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., each their party’s second-ranking Senate leader. Both said they would oppose the flag-burning amendment.”
Repeating what I said in last night’s blog, the First Amendment does not say that flag burning is a part of our free speech rights. For most of our history, flag burning was not considered a part of our free speech rights. Our libertine Supreme Court (The direction of the Court is now changing because of the two appointments by President Bush.) ruled in one of many obscene decisions that flag burning was a form of protected free speech. Anyone who claims that the First Amendment protects flag burning without clarifying the circumstance is skewing the truth.
The truth is that every Senator who votes against the proposed Amendment is not “protecting the First Amendment’s right to free speech.” Rather, the Senators are protecting the political decision of a libertine Supreme Court which altered the provisions of the First Amendment as established by historical precedent and the intent of the original writers of the Amendment. The protection was not recognized until the 1960’s and 70’s. The Court changed the intent of the First Amendment to suit their desires—the Court ignored the intent of the original writers of the Amendment.
From reading the first four paragraphs of the article, the obvious conclusion would seem to be that the proposed Amendment has no chance of being passed. The only information given is from those who oppose the Amendment. The article declares that the Amendment is not needed. The article implies that the Amendment is not supported by either Democrats or Republicans. The article quotes Senator McConnell who suggests that the First Amendment has protected flag burning for over 200 years—which, of course, is incorrect and terribly misleading. One might even wonder why it is being considered at all considering the information given.
But wait! The sixth and last paragraph completely changed the importance of the upcoming vote. “’It is within one vote of passage. And I think that’s unfortunate,’ Durbin said.” What!!! It is possible that the Amendment might pass!
How is that possible? It takes a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to pass a Constitutional Amendment. If all Senators vote on the question, it takes 67 votes to pass the proposal. There are 66 Senators who might vote for the Amendment? Reading the first four paragraphs, I don’t know how anyone would arrive at that conclusion. Do you think the article was just a little bit slanted in opposition to the Amendment?
The above was written earlier today. According to WGN television news at 9:00 p.m., the Senate has voted on the proposed Amendment. 66 Senators voted in favor of the Amendment. The Amendment missed approval by one vote. This, of course, means that a majority of Senators voted for the Amendment and some Democrats voted for the Amendment.
I don’t know who voted against it. My guess is the usual libertine Democrat suspects. My guess is that both Senators Kerry and Kennedy of Massachusetts voted against the Amendment. Senator Durbin of Illinois was quoted in the article as opposed to the Amendment. My guess is that Senator Obama of Illinois also voted against the Amendment. Is it time to start voting libertines out of the Senate and the House of Representatives?
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 11:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home