Republicans Push Controversial Votes

[Thurston Howell IV]

WASHINGTON - Flag-burning and the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are about to join gay marriage among the volatile issues that congressional Republicans have pushed to votes ahead of the election to remind the public how the GOP and Democrats differ.

The House is expected to vote next week on a bill that says only state courts can hear cases involving the pledge. As a result, the Supreme Court could not rule on whether "under God" violates the First Amendment, which says in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has said he also wants a debate and vote on flag-burning before Congress adjourns next month. Lawmakers have debated the flag amendment almost annually since the high court, by a 5-4 decision in 1989, said flag-burning was a form of speech protected by the Constitution.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, has also promised a vote this month on President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, even though the idea got only 48 votes to 50 against it in the Senate in July. Constitutional amendments require two-thirds majorities, or 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=ap/congress_wedge_votes

[yorgatron]

1. thing is though,they don't WANT to win any of these battles

because then they couldn't portray themselves as "victims" of the "liberal conspiracy"

[POed_Ex_Repub]

3. I agree, and I think we should respond with...

Which party controls all three branches of government again? Gee.. some "Liberal conspiracy"

[Lindsay]

2. Meanwhile, the Repugs

refuse to allow a vote on extending unemployment benefits or raising the minimum wage.

Who loves ya, baby?

[JDPriestly]

4. Democrats should go on strike and refuse to vote on bills

unless Democrats can win.

[yardwork]

5. It's time for some good old filibustering

The Democrats in the Senate need to make sure that the flag-burning proposal does not come to a vote this year. If they allow the vote, they may hand the election to shrub.

As for the gay marriage proposal, I HOPE that the House debates it! The last time Congress talked about this the Republicans sounded so absolutely effing insane that even their hard-core supporters got quiet. Plus the Log Cabin Republicans took off. Think of what additional self-inflicted damage the Republicans could impose if they do it again!

[ikojo]

11. Trouble is the Dems are not nearly as

disciplined as the pugs. There will be a number of Dems who support any Republican legislation, some out of a misguided attempt at "bipartisanship" (which in my opinion means the Democrats roll over for the pugs but never vice versa) and others will support it because they are DINOs (like Zell Miller and Joseph Lieberman).

Imagine if a pug Senator had addressed the Dem convention to endorse Kerry...that Senator would be ostracized. Oh no but not Zell, the Dem party does not ask him to leave. He is still considered a Dem.

[grytpype]

6. Assholes.

I fucking hate Republicans. Scum. Drive them into the sea.

[Fovea]

7. Yeah, here's how R's and D's differ...

Ted Kennedy get on the floor of the Senate and tears them a new one on the difference between their health care, and the average American's.

Tom DeLay and Bill Frist scream about flag burners, and gay marriage.

These Repug bastards are not worth a pitcher of warm spit. Next up, the freaks will demand a Scopes Monkey re-trial, and this time the monkees better win.

[shirlden]

8. Our flag is too wet to burn

The Repugs have it totally saturated in piss.
I am so sick of seeing my flag desecrated by these Neanderthals who think it is a t-shirt, a bumper sticker, a sweat band or an autograph book. It means nothing to me anymore and I spent many years as an honor guard at our local VFW. How proud I was to be a part of honoring that flag.

Burn it ????? Hell....why bother....the morans of this country can have it.

I needed that rant.

:grr:

[msturgis524]

9. Bring on the flag burning

Every time they have tried it, they have phrased the law as desecration. Bush has spent time signing (desecrating) flags. Let them bring the debate out and hand out pictures of him doing it.

[gratuitous]

10. I love the stink of desperation in the morning

They're trying to get this stuff on the table (1) to avoid talking about real issues like the deteriorating situation and in Iraq; and (2) because they know they won't be setting the agenda for much longer.

[bemildred]

12. Yeah, more desperate blather from the political hacks. nt

[teryang]

13. Funny

they have so little to offer, they can't even muster issues more substantial than those in an adolescent civics class.

[iamjoy]

14. About The Flag...

Driving around Central Florida, seeing the aftermath of Charley, I saw a few flags, tattered and ragged by the storm.

The news crews showed a flag being torn apart by Frances' winds. Just part of the scenery for them, like the Bar-B-Q sign peeling off the building.

In the midst of their other hurricane preparations, people forgot to protect their flag - they left it out in the wind and rain and the flags were desecrated.

Would the Republicans charge these people with a crime?

[Shallah Kali]

15. This is like the Freedom Fries & Freedom Toast bills

Meaningless posturing the equal of putting a flag decal on your car as if it means you are truely patriotic and support the troops. :puke:

[Shallah Kali]

16. Remember when Bush defaced a flag by autographing it?

Mr. Bush and the Flag
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0831-01.htm

THE WHITE HOUSE supports the wrongheaded constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power "to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." Yet in light of an incident last month, Mr. Bush should consider whether he might be the first person jailed should this perennial foolishness -- passed most recently by the House of Representatives earlier this year -- ever become part of the Constitution. Mr. Bush, at a political event in Livonia, Mich., autographed supporters' flags, an apparent violation of an obscure provision of American law that details the respect with which flags should be treated. "The flag," reads the code, "should never have placed upon it . . . any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature." The last time Congress sought to ban flag-burning, in a statute the Supreme Court struck down in 1989, it made a criminal out of anyone who "defaces" a flag -- language Mr. Bush likewise appears to have violated. Never mind the fact that he clearly meant no disrespect; if Congress had the power to criminalize flag desecration, he would at least arguably be indictable.