Feinstein on Flag Burning

[ProudDad]

What a dipstick:

I love this line:

"many Californians have told me of their desire for such
protection for our flag"

The only f*ckin' "Californians" she knows are those in the top 2% of the income pyramid. What a joke!!!


Here's her letter to me and my reponse to her:

-----------------------------------------------

[e-mail] wrote:

>
>
>July 12, 2005
>
>
>Me .........
>My street...
>Oakland, California
>
>Dear Mr. <Proud Dad>:
>
> Thank you for writing to express your opposition to a
>constitutional amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the
>American flag. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts
>with me.
>
> Unfortunately, we will have to disagree about this issue. I
>strongly believe that the American flag holds a unique position in our
>society as the most important and universally recognized symbol that
>unites us as a nation. The flag -- as a symbol of our nationhood -- can
>and should be respected and protected from attack. Beyond my personal
>convictions, many Californians have told me of their desire for such
>protection for our flag. Indeed, California had a flag protection statute
>from 1929 until 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the
>flag protection statutes of 47 states and the Federal government.
>
> The authority for a nation to protect its central symbol of unity
>was considered constitutional for two centuries. It was only a decade
>ago that a narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court said otherwise. At
>this point, it seems clear that the only way to protect the American flag is
>to amend the Constitution to authorize Congress to prohibit the physical
>desecration of the flag. In the 108th Congress I was an original cosponsor
>of Senate Joint Resolution 4 (S. J. Res. 4) which would have done just
>that. I will continue to pursue the topic in the 109th Congress.
>
> Please know that I value your opinion, but on this issue I am
>afraid we will remain in disagreement. However, I greatly appreciate
>your input and hope that you will continue to share your views with me.
>If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call my
>Washington, DC staff at [phone].
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Dianne Feinstein
> United States Senator
>


I wrote back:

---------------

Who's going to decide what flag "desecration" is? What criteria will be used.

We all know the answer to that.

If a golfer at the country club is wearing flag bermuda shorts, a flag shirt and sporting flag head covers -- he'll be safe

If an anti-globalization or anti-war demonstrator has a burning flag t-shirt on, she'll probably be arrested.

This is the MAIN reason to vote this ideotic measure down...there's NO way to fairly enforce it.

This is a monumental waste of time (and plays right into the Rove plan) to legislate a very rare activity that injures no one.

You should go back and read some of the seminal documents of the "Forefathers", especially as they deal with they Tyranny of the State.

[fooj]

1. When was the last time you saw anyone burning an American flag?

She needs to get a grip...I've been waiting for years, now, and she can't seem to hold it together to save her life.

I could be wrong, but didn't she OPPOSE an amendment such as this when she was the Mayor of SF? It seems to me as if there was something going on re: flag at that time, as well.



Peace.

[BamaLefty]

11. I've Never Seen It

Thankfully.

[slackmaster]

2. Laws don't "protect" anything

Fire-retardant chemicals could protect a flag from burning. A law can only provide for a penalty for the proscribed behavior.

[ProudDad]

3. In keeping with my core principle

of "Piss on all Flags!"

As soon as someone around me burns the flag, I'll piss on it...

[Pushed To The Left]

4. I got the same response

It's very disappointing that so many politicians, including some that are usually progressive, want to pass an Amendment that limits freedom of expression and is based solely on emotion.

[MikeH]

5. I also got the same response

Actually I got the response from her almost a couple of months ago now.

She obviously has her priorities screwed up, to say the least.

[MaryBear]

6. Oh, brother!

She indeed is off base with supporting a Constitutional Amendment on this issue. It is way over-kill!

Watch out. I may be won over to the anti-Di crowd before long.

:hi:

[proud patriot]

7. hi MaryBear

I agree with you about it being a waste of resources
to try to defeat her . She sure upsets me at times though.

I won't work against her but won't defend her either :hi:

I guess I'm resigned to accepting her begrudgingly as my
Senator .

[genius]

8. There is no way I'm voting for her. She better not be nominated.

[davidinalameda]

10. hell has frozen over

I'm agreeing with genius

:hi:

[Gyre]

9. She's a whore for the status quo.

Which has been very good to her. But most of us have known that for awhile so this position isn't surprising. She's pretty much to the right of the DLC. She stays in office cause she's an incumbant with tons of cash, w/o much merit from a center-left democratic party perspective.

Gyre

[cascadiance]

12. I see that she's also voiced that she will support Roberts as SC nominee!

She really is showing now that she's a DINO! She should thank her lucky stars that Dems aren't in a more powerful position in congress now, or else I'm sure there would be a pointed effort to challenge her moreso in the primary.

I do think she's better than any Rethug at this point, but if someone like Bernie Sanders were to run against her, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat!