September 08, 2004

Congress decides that after 200+ years serious changes to the constitution needed... (NY Time link. registration required) In the upcomming session of Congress it is expected that the House will vote on the gay marriage ammendment, the Senate will vote on a Flag Burning Ammendment, and law is expected to be introduced that will, "prohibiting courts from hearing challenges to the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance" not to mention the good old " series of bills intended to limit lawsuits" and no doubt help big buisness get away with whatever they want. What is America the land of again?

I encourage all American citizens to let their elected representatives know that it isn't just "activist judges" that we don't like. The ACLU among other places has an easy way to contact Washington if you are opposed to these proposals.

posted by jccalhoun 20 years ago
  • Sounds more like Activist Congressmen to me.
  • Yay! I'm feeling safer already.
  • Sounds like unholy fuckheads who oughtta be put in stocks to me.
  • Well, we can all take some measure of comfort in the fact that the Consitution, bless the Framers, is godawful difficult to amend. This story sounds like a bit a raw meat for the more toothy segments of the Republican party. I would discount it.
  • I, for one, am glad to see that the US Gubmint is tackling the important issues. If I have to step over one more homosexual couple making love on top of a burning American flag while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance -- sans under God -- on my morning commute, I think I'll go mad!
  • Well, if the anti-flag-desecration amendment passes, then we can simply wrap all our buildings in the flag and voilà! no more fear of rogue aeroplanes illegally desecrating the flag.
  • Fes has it - these are wedge issues for the election, not serious attempts at legislation. The Republican party is trying to put the Democrats on the spot, and paint them as a bunch of nation hating flag burning hippies.
  • I agree with Fes and polychrome that these are just actions designed to win points with the base constituency of the Republicans, and should fail like previous attempts. There is a good history of flag burning at this site What seems to always be forgotton or ignored (at least in the media) regarding the pledge issue is that the words "Under God" were added in 1954, which was the 3rd change last century. The attempts in court are just to reverse a change that should never have been made in the first place.
  • People, if you link to the New York Times use the Userland links that don't require registration. Check it out. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/politics/07cong.html?ex=1252209600&en=87e20cebd8fc8de2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
  • What is America the land of again? Waffles. It's the land of waffles. And god bless them for it.
  • uncleozzy has it - I too am skeerd of homo-sexya'lls, un-Merkans, and assorted other fearful things. God blest them 'publicans fer makin me safe from all them un-white weirdos and their weirdo ways.
  • Here's a bit of token Anti-Americanism for the evening. Suggested election slogan: "Fag Burning, not Flag Burning!" Right. I'm of to pledge my allegiance to bum sex. "One nation under Oh My Gaaahhhd!," and all that. Americans are great
  • What is America the land of again? America is the land of big corporations: The United States of Wal-Mart. (add you own pick) I picked Wal-Mart, because it is the biggest monopoly easily recognized by the general population, here in the mid-western USA (USW). I am sick of it all, the BS is the worst I ever saw. *I pledge alleigience, to the flag of the United States of Walmart, and to the big coporations for which it stands, one nation under governmental seige...* arrrgh...so frustrated
  • sullivan, cool trick. do you just type =rssuserland at the end of the URL?
  • ..so frustrated I can't even spell alleigience=allegiance
  • SideDish - I think Sullivan might have used this.
  • America is the land of two continents separated by an artificial canal. Eh what?
  • America is a giant, scat-flinging monkey.
  • bratcat: walmart is hardly a monopoly, sure they are huge, but a monopoly absoultely not.
  • Zeoslap, perhaps not nation wide but here in rural America they have the monopoly, small business suffers greatly whenever another monster store is opened. Which happens more and more, so imo they are a monopoly.
  • wait. i thought we were the united states of halliburton. damn you bratcat, now i'm confused. i pledge allegiance to the logo of the united CEOs of Ame®iCo™; and to the corporation, for which it stands, one company, under new management, with low wages and no benefits for all. this poem is the licensed property of AmeriCo™. no unauthorized recitation is permitted by law. AmeriCo™ is a registered trademark.
  • Caution Live frogs: thanks, you made me laugh with that one, AmeriCo....., yea halliburton is a good pick too.
  • kwyjibo's link omits some interesting info. Youths' Companion was a magazine with the largest national circulation of its day (around 500,000), and the Pledge was written and published as part of a campaign to sell flags to schools. More here. So frogs' pledge is scary appropriate.
  • By the way, there was a really great article in the Aug 28 - Sept 3 issue of the Economist - "Special Issue on the Bush Presidency" - called "The contradictory conservative". (Subscription, sadly, is required.) The last section, subtitled "Imperium revisited" gets into great detail about the ways the administration has worked to enhance executive (presidential) power at the expense of congress through strong-arming republican congressmen, increased classification of all sorts of documents (on subject like the environment) that would otherwise be subject to teh freedom of information act, subtle last-minute modification of bills that in fact have a significant impact on their meaning, the reduction of Congress' role as a watchdog, and on and on. I found the article particularly interesting as the Economist is considered to be right-wing (they continue to support US military intervention in Iraq), and because the article was typically level-headed and detailed.
  • By the way, there was a really great article in the Aug 28 - Sept 3 issue of the Economist - "Special Issue on the Bush Presidency" - called "The contradictory conservative". (Subscription, sadly, is required.) The last section, subtitled "Imperium revisited" gets into great detail about the ways the administration has worked to enhance executive (presidential) power at the expense of congress through strong-arming republican congressmen, increased classification of all sorts of documents (on subject like the environment) that would otherwise be subject to teh freedom of information act, subtle last-minute modification of bills that in fact have a significant impact on their meaning, the reduction of Congress' role as a watchdog, and on and on. I found the article particularly interesting as the Economist is considered to be right-wing (they continue to support US military intervention in Iraq), and because the article was typically level-headed and detailed.
  • oops.
  • Here we go again: US President George W Bush has called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages "An amendment to the constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," Mr Bush said. AAARRRRRRRGGGGH
  • Oh noes! We can't let them activist judges make decisions for us like that! I mean, who do they think they are, being the judicial branch and all? "Checks and balances" means to balance your checkbook, right?
  • Same thing they did last election year. I guess you go with what works. Is there some meaning of "interpret the law" I don't understand?
  • I want to see someone ask Bush when he intends to have Loving v Virginia set aside. Those darn activist courts.
  • AAiigh! It's teh gheyz!! OMFG!!1! *panics, votes depublican*
  • Too bad Bush is so fucking sex-obsessed that he can't get on with running the country and stay out of everyone's bedroom.
  • If he weren't president, he'd be a peeping-Tom.
  • *imagines peeping Bush* Somehow, that doesn't sit well with me.