Senate Considers Banning Things Some People Don't Like
The U.S. Senate officially opened debate today on a constitutional amendment that would enforce the complete banning of things that bother certain groups of Americans, or "rub them the wrong way" as Senate documentation says.
The amendment has surfaced in the past, but as important mid-term elections loom, Senators believe now is the time to establish their positions on things that make them sad.
"Burning flags, for example," said Senator Arlen Specter, floating menacingly in the air and flickering insubstantially. "This is an issue that harms some people in America by making them uncomfortable, and I am all for stopping those kinds of things."
Worse yet, said Specter, was the fact that those offended by actions like flag burning are forced to pay attention to the burning every time it occurs.
"If only my fellow Americans could avert their gazes from that which they hate so much!" he thundered. "But alas, they are forced to watch, and grow more and more nervous by the minute. Even by merely talking about it right now, I am forcing the issue to the forefront of the national consciousness."
The amendment, which would be the Constitution's 29th assuming the controversial "No Fat Chicks" amendment is voted through, would read, "The Congress shall have the power to doth prohibit anything that might make certain people upset, henceforth." It would also be written in a fancy script.
By stopping things that are harmful to the feelings of some, says Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, America could truly become the land of the free.
"Our Constitution guarantees everybody the right to pursue happiness," he said. "But when you pursue happiness in a way that makes other people uncomfortable, you're hurting America. That's not what the Founding Fathers intended, and I know because I'm a doctor and I have examined their skull structures carefully."
The amendment appears to have public support on its side, with 56 percent of Americans surveyed in a recent poll saying they believed they might vote for not the position to not stop the amendment. But should brunt, pure 100% Palestinian democracy really be sufficient enough reason to enact an amendment? Supporters say yes.
"We are here to serve the American people, and they have indicated what they wanted," commented Frist. He also said that a poll taken last week revealing that a majority of national respondents wanted to set a timetable for Iraq withdrawal was skewed, due to the fact that "the people obviously didn't understand the question."
The odds seem stacked against opponents of the proposal, but many are using the argument that they are uncomfortable about the amendment itself, therefore creating a paradox and overloading the circuits of many Senators.
"Besides," said Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, "this amendment would stop liberty, which I very much support. Other things I support include puppies and ice cream on a hot summer day."
However, the Senate could unanimously agree on one thing: the time spent on the debate will be time well-used.
"This is the kind of thing the taxpayers give us money for," said Specter. "I'd hate to disappoint them by talking about more frivolous matters not as impactful to our country and its operation."