...........
However, despite the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the issue, seeking to criminalize flag burning has been a regular occurance in American politics, and was pushed in 2005 by then-Sen. Clinton.
In 2005, Clinton co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act which, while it did not call for the stripping of citizenship, made flag burning with the intent to incite violence or disturb the peace punishable by a year in jail and a $100,000 fine.
The bipartisan bill, introduced by Clinton and then-Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, never made it out of the Judiciary Committee, but was floated as a compromise to a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning.
Clinton was criticized for her stance then, although the criticisms leveled at her targeted Clinton's perceived political slipperiness, rather than her representing a threat to constitutional liberty. A New York Times piece accused the senator of being “in pander mode.”
“It's hard to see this as anything but pandering -- there certainly isn't any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn't been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends,” the paper claimed.
The Tampa Bay Times, meanwhile, called Clinton's move a “pathetic ploy” and “political pandering of the worst kind.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-burning-but-clinton-wanted-same-in-2005.html
However, despite the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the issue, seeking to criminalize flag burning has been a regular occurance in American politics, and was pushed in 2005 by then-Sen. Clinton.
In 2005, Clinton co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act which, while it did not call for the stripping of citizenship, made flag burning with the intent to incite violence or disturb the peace punishable by a year in jail and a $100,000 fine.
The bipartisan bill, introduced by Clinton and then-Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, never made it out of the Judiciary Committee, but was floated as a compromise to a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning.
Clinton was criticized for her stance then, although the criticisms leveled at her targeted Clinton's perceived political slipperiness, rather than her representing a threat to constitutional liberty. A New York Times piece accused the senator of being “in pander mode.”
“It's hard to see this as anything but pandering -- there certainly isn't any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn't been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends,” the paper claimed.
The Tampa Bay Times, meanwhile, called Clinton's move a “pathetic ploy” and “political pandering of the worst kind.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-burning-but-clinton-wanted-same-in-2005.html
