Something that I don't think has been brought up yet in the flag-burning debate:
Sen. Bob Bennett's bill would have been a statute to do basically the same thing as Orrin Hatch's amendment. Only, it would have had a more immediate impact.
So, if you truly wanted to stop flag burning, you would vote for the Bennett bill, right?
Orrin Hatch voted against it.
Let me say it again: Orrin Hatch voted AGAINST a bill to ban falg burning.
You see, with Senator Hatch, it's not about actual flag burning, it's about making the statement.
That's right. The grandstanding is more important than the final product.
Speaking up about Gay, Flag-burning Latin Americans with guns is more important than actually doing something to better the situation.
-Bob
2 comments:
this surprises you about him HOW??? Inside the Beltway, it's not WHAT you do, it's how loudly you DO it. With that theory, one could make a splash using one's own bodily functions.
Voting for a smaller statute would not galvanize the sleeping Right nearly to the extent that a constitutional amendment would. And it went so well when they tried to amend for marriage....
he speak fork tung anyway.
I have no dog in this fight, but perhaps I can provide a little perspective.
In one sense, Bennett's bill is designed to take the wind out of the sails of a constitutional amendment. That is, if it passed, there would be no pressure to amend the Constitution. This is a very common legislative ploy. Consequently, Hatch's opposition to the bill is perfectly consistent with a desire to protect the flag by constitutional amendment.
If the goal is to protect the flag, Hatch can argue (and has argued) that a bill (Bennett's or anyone else's) will not get the job done. The federal courts have repeatedly struck down attempts to protect the flag by statute. Perhaps Bennett has found the magic language that will pass muster with the courts, but Hatch doubts it.
Ergo, Hatch's actions are perfectly consistent.
g
Gordon S. Jones
Post a Comment