Menendez pick jeopardizes free speech

wedge issue? (0.00 / 0)

sounds like an opportunity to use the flag as a wedge issue to at the very least draw a dichotomy between our friend Rush Holt and the other loosers in the upcomming primary.

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 17:25:21 PM UTC

Flag Burning is a Republican Frame-Trap (0.00 / 0)

It's been used for as long as I can remember. 

Better for him to vote yes, take the air out of their balloon, let the courts decide and move on to better issues; better ground for Democrats.

myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com

---

by: underdogdemocrat @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 18:24:34 PM UTC

... (0.00 / 0)

two shy of the 2/3rds needed to make it law

doesn't an amendment that passes the Senate go to the states for ratification?  I'm not a history major or lawyer, only a lowly engineer, but I remember that from 1 of the 2 history classes I took- professor told us how Jefferson wrote the 27th amendment, and enough states finally ratified it 200 years later.

---

by: novaraz @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 18:49:11 PM UTC

You're right (0.00 / 0)

3/4s of the states need to ratify it. There's normally a time limit put in place by the Congress of 7 years.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 19:16:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and (0.00 / 0)

I've corrected my wording.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 19:19:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pallone and the flag amendment (0.00 / 0)

A member of the peace group, Central Jersey Coalition brought up the flag amendment with Pallone at a townhall in August.  He seemed to have not thought through the implications of it and was interested in the idea that it could be a precedent for suppressing speech. Unfortunately the House vote is done with the usual suspects going along.

---

by: kwilkinson @ Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 19:35:49 PM UTC

Ignorant I am (0.00 / 0)

You're sure that 2/3 refers to those present -- and not of the full, respected body that it is?

---

by: DennisJaffe @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 at 13:30:18 PM UTC

yes (0.00 / 0)

From wikipedia:

two-thirds of those members present—assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 at 13:57:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Article V of the US Constitution (0.00 / 0)

"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."

So, the Amendment process gets underway when BOTH Houses of Congress pass the same bill or when 2/3 of the state legislatures (or special convention) do so.  After that, 3/4 of the states have to approve the Amendment

Of course, the problem is that it's rather easy to get 3/4 of the House to do something like this. 

If Andrews hasn't thought of the free speech issue then he has simply been ignoring his duties.  I simply don't believe it.  Any member of his staff that investigated it or sat through mark-up would know that previous bans on flag burning have been struck down by the courts due to exactly that issue.  That's the reason why they are trying to force an Amendment - because the laws are unconstitutional.  Either he's trying to save face or he's an idiot.  Nothing about him suggests the latter, so I'll have to say he's a liar.

A quorum allows a simple majority to pass votes, but Amendments are special cases.  It is 2/3 of the entire Senate and 2/3 of the entire House - empty seats and missing legislators count as "nay" votes.

Yes, it is an intentionally divisive issue.  That is still no excuse for being on the wrong side of the vote.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 at 15:48:04 PM UTC