Dead horses must hate election years

Jeff Woodhead notes that Senate Republicans aren’t content with just one silly amendment per month. They’ve brought the flag burning amendment back for another vote.

Comments

  1. Rachel says:

    Eh, this one’s an annual favorite. Comes up every year, gets a bunch of op-ed ink, and goes away quietly. Same goes for DC statehood. I keep hoping for the rest of the city (and congress) to catch the same amendment ennui, but I think that’s a vain wish.

  2. Sarah says:

    Fucking conservatives.

  3. Mike says:

    If this ever passed (which it won’t), I think someone should start a company that manufactures American flags with only 49 stars. That way, if people wanted to burn the flag, they could more or less do so without violating the law.

  4. Steve says:

    I love this post’s title!

  5. John says:

    I have to agree, the post title is the best part.

    Interesting thing, this flag burning amendment. I think burning the flag is stupid and dispicable; I always have. However, one of my first encounters with the First Amendment was when the president of the ACLU gave a speech on flag burning at the NYLF on Law in Washington. Prior to her speech I was a big supporter of the amendment: after all, it si common sense that the symbol of a nation that has stood so steadfastly for freedom should not have it’s most sacred national symbol defiled.

    Nadine, however, proved to me that the reason the flag held such meaning was precisely the freedom (even to burn it) for which it stood. That was a n earth-shattering realization for me. GReat post. I hope this thing dies quickly.

  6. Adam Gintis says:

    Good lord, a week and a day and no new posts! You’d think you were dead, not just traveling and working…

  7. Mike says:

    Yeah, ditto to what Adam said. I hope my bad blogging habits didn’t rub off somehow.

Leave a Comment

*