First, a suggestion. If you want to impress people with your legal acumen, you should use the proper terminology. It's "precedent" not "precedence", and no, they don't mean the same thing.
Second, I suspect you and others will pooh-pooh the notion that the flag protection bill the Clinton co-sponsored was part of a coordinated political strategy to defeat a Constitutional flag burning amendment, but that is in fact the reality.
Some history:
Legislation purporting to ban flag burning was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1989, setting the stage for repeated attempts by Republicans to amend the Constitution. The House passed flag amendments to the Constitution by more than the required 2/3 margin in every Congress from 104th (1995) to the 109th (2006). Twice (1995 and 2000) the Senate came within 4 votes of also providing the required 2/3 vote of approval.
Heading into 2005 and 2006, the proponents of a flag burning amendment to the Constitution were very optimistic about their chances for getting to the necessary 2/3 vote in the Senate. A resolution to amend the Constitution was introduced in January 2005. In response, an unlikely ally of the anti-amendment forces, Utah Republican Senator Bennett, introduced legislation to protect the flag in April (S.1370). The idea was to provide cover for those opposed to the constitutional amendment. In July 2005, shortly after the House voted in favor of the Constitutional amendment by more than the required 2/3 margin, four Democrats signed up as co-sponsors of the Bennett legislation: Byrd, Carper, Conrad, and Dorgan. The bill, as expected, was buried by the Republican majority -- it did not even get a hearing. By the way, Robert Byrd was considered the foremost Constitutional expert in the Senate. He knew the law he was co-sponsoring was not going to pass, that it would be subject to constitutional challenge if it did, and that it would protect the constitution from being amended.
With a vote on the Constitutional amendment approved by the House still looming in the fall, Bennett introduced a second bill (S. 1911) in October 2005, this time with Clinton as a fig leaf co-sponsor. After it became clear that the Senate was going to vote on the House-passed Constitutional amendment in June 2006, additional Democrats signed on as sponsors: Carper, Boxer, and Pryor. That bill also, as expected, died without even a hearing, as was intended by its sponsors. However, the very fact that the legislation addressing flag desecration had been introduced gave the sponsors the political cover to vote against the House-passed Constitutional amendment in June 2006. The vote on the amendment was 66-34: one vote shy of the necessary 2/3. Every one of the co-sponsors of the two Bennett bills: Clinton, Boxer, Carper, Conrad, Pryor, Byrd, Dorgan and Bennett voted no on the amendment; had even one of them defected, the amendment would have gone to the states for almost certain ratification.
There is no doubt that signing onto the Bennett bills was an act of self-interest and/or self-preservation by several of the Democrats -- Carper, Clinton, Conrad and Byrd were all up for re-election in 2006. But the reality is that no one expected or intended the legislation they were supporting to go anywhere. Indeed, they knew for a fact it wouldn't go anywhere because the Republican majority would never allow a mere piece of legislation to pass in lieu of their desired Constitutional amendment. By having a group of Democrats and a lead Republican on that legislation, it became possible to kill the Constitutional amendment without any chance of harm befalling citizens' first amendment rights.
I don't call that pandering. I call it smart legislative strategy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
