Ravenwood - 06/23/05 07:15 AM
The House of Representatives approved a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning, something they have been pushing for more than a decade. The Associated Press reports that with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the Amendment might actually pass.
The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved by two-thirds of those present in each chamber, then ratified within seven years by at least 38 state legislatures.No, no, no, no! Chipping away at the First Amendment is an idiotic idea. Flag burning, while detestable, should be protected free speech. Anyone who supports a ban cannot possible support the First Amendment.The amendment is designed to overturn a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in 1989 that flag burning is a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute as well as flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam War protesters setting fire to American flags at demonstrations.
As a patriot, I hate flag burning as much as the next guy. It's not surprise that it's unpopular. But unpopular speech is the exact kind of speech that the First Amendment is meant to protect. And as long as a person is burning their own flag and not causing a fire hazard to anyone else, the practice should remain legal. Throwing someone in jail for buring a red white and blue piece of fabric is tyranny, whether you make it legal or not.
And desecration is highly subjective. Proper flag disposal calls for burning, burial, or destruction of the flag thread by thread. Would the local VFW be subject to arrest for putting a haggard flag to rest?
This is a very slippery slope? What's next, bibles? Korans?
UPDATE: Neal says that a better Amendment would say that "neither the federal government, nor any state or local government can make any action a crime unless that action serves or conspires to deny to some individual their right to life, liberty or property through force or fraud."
Category: Fall of Western Civilization
Comments (5) top link me
This is a very slippery slope? What's next, bibles? Korans?
Well, this is the killer isn't it? If you or I burn a flag, thats just dissent - unless its a muslim one (Saudi Arabia say), then its all of a sudden hate speech. I bet its perfectly OK with people to burn a Bible, burn a koran and its persecution of the poor 'slimes. A better idea would be to mandate strict constitutional interpretation for judges, then it would work as your founders intended.
Posted by: robert in england at June 23, 2005 7:08 AMCouldn't agree more.
Posted by: Bruce at June 23, 2005 8:43 AMFlag burning? Strictly a political statement ! Let it be.
We sure got som catch 22's in this country:
Pissing on a bible is Art.
Flushing a Koran is desecration.
?
Flag burning is an ACTION not SPEECH ergo not covered by the First Amendment, no matter what the moronic SCOTUS says. Nude dancing is NOT Speech. Flag burnig is, however, treason.
Posted by: Joe Weber at June 24, 2005 1:27 PMJoe,
Flag burning is a form of political speech. It is not literally speech, but then neither are campaign ads, marches, picket signs, or bumper stickers. Should be ban bumper stickers because they aren't specifically protected by the Constitution?
Posted by: Ravenwood at June 24, 2005 1:48 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014