The Secret of the Universe is Choice

Presents, a Life with a Plan. My name is Karen Anastasia Placek, I am the author of this Google Blog. This is the story of my journey, a quest to understanding more than myself. The title of this blog, "The Secret of the Universe is Choice!; know decision" will be the next global slogan. Placed on T-shirts, Jackets, Sweatshirts, it really doesn't matter, 'cause a picture with my slogan is worth more than a thousand words, it's worth??.......Know Conversation!!!

Monday, January 25, 2016

What Is A Bandana When The Calvary Rote Notes On The Sleeve??

Whys is the bourne to show the Tow back Owe,

is that than the Smoke keen to Write a Chick In Knocks??,

did the answer say to speak in Silent move ease??,

does the little rebel Quest shin or balance the Scene??.

What say Chew to the Hose on the Lo were Lipped,

for Hugh said that it is a Learned be Have Your?? or is It behavior??,

Fore on the Bureau of In Vest a Gate shin its the Sneeze??,

or is the Sun so loud that the Moon raised a dark Side to be of the Signs??

Gee Whiz is the Sesame on the street to Know of the Cal. in Dure??,

does the Ton Ole echo or does the Waltz no the Bowel eh??,

did the base Mint coin to Ice Fact or Read??,

knows be Cause of the 811 on the 815 at the Chap Tour??,

farmers and Ditches ploughs And harness Bridles too bits,

mark Well the cobblestone of a shingle on the cobblers mile.

An Inch to a Measure the Ounce to a jug,

the weight is tremendous sounding out this display,

speak on the easy bring brains to a crate,

what is the grave Yard surround did buy that Peep pole`d Dice??,

or is it the chorus Singing Flout??

Violin Cello Trumpet Trombone Shoes & the Lei^S' duh??,

thats an At known for the Lie is of Race,

Hawaii or Floor Ride to special see Deed that put flubber Boats to what is eye lands Posture.

Nair Owe is these chaps on communication blunt,

now should the bye bull say to that Thanks,

good Sal ewe Ta suns or Playland to board,

'cause the sub Marine is next on the Big bell Awe,

gunny sacks that knew the slide burns the . . . ..

who has a Photo that cube it coal to slip,

is it the Photo Booth of Wares of a Name,

should Ed My Brother say to the Muni,

how long is the walk to know of the clay,

underwater in the swim of seal Rock calf eh,

what is the lagoon that showed the bottom of the falls as rinse a pawn the same,

the wash or is it the Coffee at the draw??,

'cause 'IF' thats A case that Whom has a Swimming Pool so small you Can't Not Resist??

*Flag Desecration Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Flag Desecration Amendment, often referred to as the Flag-burning Amendment, is a proposed constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow the United States Congress to prohibit statutorily the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The concept of flag desecration continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol, protecting free speech, and protecting the liberty represented by a national symbol.

While the proposed amendment is frequently referred to colloquially in terms of expression of political views through "flag burning," the language would permit the prohibition of all forms of flag desecration, which may take forms other than burning, such as using the flag for clothing or napkins.

The most recent attempt to adopt a flag desecration amendment failed in the United States Senate by one vote on June 27, 2006.^[1]^[2]

[hide]

Proposed amendment[edit]

The Bill of Rights

The full text of the amendment (passed several times by the U.S. House of Representatives):

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

This proposed amendment was intended to give Congress the right to enact statutes criminalizing the burning or other desecration of the United States flag in a public protest. Proponents of legislation to proscribe flag burning argue that burning the flag is a very offensive gesture that deserves to be outlawed. Opponents maintain that giving Congress such power would essentially limit the principle offreedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and symbolized by the flag itself.

The theories underlying these First Amendment principles include: a robust national discourse about political and social ideas; individual self-realization; the search for truth; and, speech as a "safety valve." These concepts are expounded in both the majority and dissenting opinions of the cases described below. There Justice William Joseph Brennan, Jr. noted that the "principal function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."^[3]

Polls[edit]

A summer 2005 poll by the First Amendment Center found that 63% of Americans opposed amending the constitution to outlaw flag burning, up from 53% in 2004.^[4] An USA Today/Gallup Poll in June 2006 found that 54% of Americans opposed a flag desecration amendment.^[5] An USA Today/Gallup Poll in June 2006 reached a different conclusion, with 56% supporting a constitutional amendment, but down from 63% favoring a flag burning amendment in Gallup's 1999 poll.^[6]^[7] Another poll conducted by CNN in June 2006 found that 56% of Americans supported a flag desecration amendment.^[1]

Judicial and legislative history[edit]

The first federal Flag Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1968 in response to protest burnings of the flag at demonstrations against the Vietnam War.^[8] Over time, 48 of the 50 U.S. states also enacted similar flag protection laws. All of these statutes were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States by a 5–4 vote in the case Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) as unconstitutional restrictions of public expression. Congress responded to the Johnson decision by passing a Flag Protection Act, only to see the Supreme Court reaffirm Johnson by the same 5–4 majority in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), declaring that flag burning was constitutionally-protected free speech.

In both cases, William J. Brennan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy (Kennedy also authored a separate concurrence in Johnson), and the dissenters in both cases were then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist (who authored a dissent in Johnson), and Justices John Paul Stevens (who authored dissents in both cases), Byron White and Sandra Day O'Connor.

The decisions were controversial and have prompted Congress to consider the only remaining legal avenue to enact flag protection statutes—a constitutional amendment. Each Congress since the Johnson decision has considered creating a flag desecration amendment. From 1995 to 2005, beginning with the 104th Congress, the proposed amendment was approved biennially by the two-thirds majority necessary in the U.S. House of Representatives, but it consistently failed to achieve the same constitutionally-required super-majority vote in the U.S. Senate. During some sessions, the proposed amendment did not even come to a vote in the Senate before the expiration of the Congress' term. The last time it was considered, in the 109th Congress, the Amendment failed by one vote in the Senate. Some Senate Republican aides indicated that almost a dozen of the Republican senators who voted for the amendment were privately opposed to it, and they believed that these senators would have voted to defeat the amendment if required.^[9]

Congressional votes[edit]

During each term of Congress from 1995 to 2005, the proposed amendment was passed by the House of Representatives, but not the Senate, falling four votes short on two occasions in the upper house. As approved by the House of Representatives each time, the joint resolutions called for ratification by state legislatures, of which a minimum of 38 state legislative approvals would be required (three-fourths of the 50 states), within a period of seven years following the proposal by both houses of Congress. As can be seen by the votes in the House of Representatives, support for the amendment appears to be slipping with only 286 'yea' votes during the 109th Congress in 2005, in contrast to the 312 'yea' votes a decade earlier during the 104th.

The chronology of the Congress' action upon the flag-desecration amendment runs over a period of more than ten years:

Congress	Resolution(s)	Vote date	Yes	No	Link
104th Congress^[10]	House Joint Resolution 79	June 28, 1995	312	120	[1]
104th Congress^[10]	Senate Joint Resolution 31	December 12, 1995	63	36	[2]
105th Congress^[11]	House Joint Resolution 54	June 12, 1997	310	114	[3]
106th Congress^[12]	House Joint Resolution 33	June 24, 1999	305	124	[4]
106th Congress^[12]	Senate Joint Resolution 14	March 29, 2000	63	37	[5]
107th Congress^[13]	House Joint Resolution 36	July 17, 2001	298	125	[6]
108th Congress^[14]	House Joint Resolution 4	June 3, 2003	300	125	[7]
109th Congress^[15]	House Joint Resolution 10	June 22, 2005	286	130	[8]
109th Congress^[15]	Senate Joint Resolution 12	June 27, 2006	66	34	[9]

To be added to the Constitution, it must be approved by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting in the 100-member Senate, as well as be ratified by at least three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures. Senators had until the end of 2006 to take action on H.J. Res. 10 during the remainder of the 109th Congress.^[15] On March 7, 2006, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced that he would bring the bill for consideration in June 2006.^[16] On Monday, June 26, 2006, the Senate began debate on the proposed amendment. The following day, the amendment, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch, fell one vote short in the Senate, with 66 in support and 34 opposed. The Republican nay votes were Bob Bennett (UT), Lincoln Chafee (RI), and Mitch McConnell (KY). The vote on Senator Richard Durbin's alternative amendment, which would have given Congress the power to ban flag desecration intended to intimidate or breach peace on federal land, was 36–64.^[2] Opponents pointed to the proximity of the vote to the November 7, 2006 Congressional Election, and claimed that the vote (and a recent vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment) was election year grandstanding.

Potential interpretations of the amendment[edit]

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (July 2014)

In 2005, the First Amendment Center published a report titled "Implementing a Flag-Desecration Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: An end to the controversy ... or a new beginning?".^[17] The report pointed out that the effect of the proposed amendment would likely be challenged on collateral matters in ways that will require the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, to parse the exact meaning of ambiguous terms contained therein. The focus of the report was on the meanings that would be assigned to the phrases, "physical desecration" and "flag of the United States."

The amendment might be interpreted as being limited to flags that meet the exact specifications for the United States flag laid out in federal law, as in the above image; see Flag of the United States for further details regarding these specifications.

It remains an open question whether flags such as this one, which contains corporate logos in place of the fifty stars, would fall under the amendment.

The phrase "physical desecration" might be open to various interpretations concerning the uncertainty of the context of desecration. For example, uncertainty exists over whether the term includes the wearing of the flag as clothing, as a tattoo, or flying a flag upside-down. It is uncertain what can be interpreted as "physical desecration". Does it require that the flag be physically damaged, or made to appear damaged? It is also unclear whether "virtual flag desecration" (which could be defined as an artistic depiction of flag desecration, a computerized simulation of flag desecration, or burning any object which has a flag on it) would be subject to the amendment. There is also the question whether the perpetrator of such an act is required to have a specific intent to "desecrate" to be prosecuted. The Report of the 108th Congress, in proposing this amendment, stated:

"...'desecrate' means deface, damage, or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend [sic] one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action..."

This seems to suggest that the amendment will apply only to acts where the actor intends offense.

Since the amendment would allow prohibition against only "the flag of the United States," it could be construed as only applying to flags that are the property of the United States government, as opposed to private property. This language could also be interpreted as being limited to flags that meet the exact specifications for the United States flag laid out in federal law. It is unclear what effect the amendment would have with respect to former flags of the United States, such as the 48-star flag that preceded the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, or the original 13-starBetsy Ross flag, or how far from the traditional definition of a flag a symbol could deviate (for example, having orange stripes instead of red) before falling out of the ambit of the amendment's jurisdiction.

The First Amendment Center concluded that the Supreme Court was likely to interpret this language narrowly, resulting in decisions that would not satisfy either proponents or opponents of the proposed amendment. Other possible interpretive issues were not addressed by the First Amendment Center report.

First, no scope is stated in the amendment. The Supreme Court has previously held that Congress may prohibit foreign acts that have an effect in the United States. The Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764(1993), and certainly the desecration of the flag on foreign soil would likely have the intended effect of offending United States citizens. The general rule is, however, that a law does not apply outside the United States unless the language of the law expressly provides for such an application. It is, therefore, unclear whether Congress would be able to prescribe punishments for those who burn the flag of the United States in a foreign country.

Second, the amendment would empower Congress to act, but not the states. Congress might interpret the amendment as giving it the power to ratify state laws to this effect, as it does for interstate compacts. The Court may find that the amendment has a preemptive effect, acting as a bar to bodies other than Congress passing such regulations. If so, then cases involving flag desecration would likely be restricted to the U.S. federal courts, as are cases involving criminal violations of copyright law. These are the only criminal courts over which Congress has jurisdiction to permit federal crimes to be heard.

All of these questions would necessarily await the interpretative role of the courts, and such a process would likely require several years for the resolution of each issue.

References[edit]

^ Jump up to:^a ^b Flag-burning amendment fails by a vote, CNN.com, June 28, 2006.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Amendment on Flag Burning Fails by One Vote in Senate, New York Times. June 27, 2006.
Jump up^ Texas v. Johnson 491 US 397, 428 (1989)
Jump up^ firstamendmentcenter.org: news.
Jump up^ Poll results show support for Iraq pullout, flag-burning amendment, USA Today.
Jump up^ "Why the flag amendment hasn't cleared Senate hurdle", csmonitor.com.
Jump up^ Shall We Burn the National Flag? Chat on the Eve of National Day, Washington Observer
Jump up^ Flag Protection: A Brief History and Summary of Recent Supreme Court Decisions and Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Jump up^ Calabresi, Massimo (27 June 2006). "Why the Flag-burning Ban Failed". Time. Retrieved 20 January 2013.
Jump up^ "Bill Summary & Status for the 104th Congress", Library of Congress: H.J. Res. 79, S.J. Res. 31.
Jump up^ "Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress", Library of Congress: H.J. Res. 54.
Jump up^ "Bill Summary & Status for the 106th Congress", Library of Congress: H.J. Res. 33, S.J. Res. 14.
Jump up^ "Bill Summary & Status for the 107th Congress", Library of Congress: H.J. Res. 36.
Jump up^ "Bill Summary & Status for the 108th Congress", Library of Congress: H.J. Res. 4.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b "Bill Summary & Status for the 109th Congress", Library of Congress: H.J. Res. 10, S.J. Res. 12.
Jump up^ "House Approves Move to Outlaw Flag Burning", June 22, 2005, Associated Press via San Francisco Chronicle
Jump up^ Robert Corn-Revere, "Implementing a Flag-Desecration Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: An end to the controversy ... or a new beginning?"

External links[edit]

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2009)

Text of the proposed Amendment from the Library of Congress
Committee Report on the Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment
A History of Flag-Burning Laws. A history of U.S. laws banning flag burning and other forms of flag desecration, from 1897 to the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment.
On Language: Desecration. Column in the New York Times (July 31, 2005) by William Safire on the use of the word desecration in the proposed amendment.
Cracking the Flag-Burning Amendment
A Brief History of Flag Burning
SourceWatch article on Citizens Flag Alliance

Categories: