Personally, I think freedom of speech is a moral positive. I don’t see how one can defend a flag burning ammendment without implicitly saying that it’s okay to silence political speech you don’t agree with. Which is to say, a vote for this ammendment is a vote against free speech. So, yeah, even though the actual consequences of passing this ammendment will likely be minor, I do think the debate has a moral component, and that supporting this ammendment is an (very minor) immoral act.
Someone more clever than me suggesting mandating that flags be made out of a fireproof material rather than banning flag burning.
I disagree. I think that the more we are numb to showboating instances of constitutional “bluffing,” the more likely something like this will eventually pass. I think it’s an insult to the greatest government document ever created, and a dangerous game of chicken. Any “debate” on the senate floor in favor of this thing, and any vote for this thing, turns me off of that politician forever.
If a politician wants to make a spectacle out of championing the ten commandments in public places, even though they can’t name the ten commandments, it pisses me off, but not like this. If they want to pass some empty non-binding resolution that’s pro children and puppies, yeah it’s pandering and icky, but meh.
This, however, is a whole dimension more offensive to me. This is actually dangerous shit they’re treating like a photo op.
You really think something this disgusting, irrlelvant to the process of government, and antithetical to individual liberty would’ve ever gotten into the original document? I’m astounded.
You misspelled “tyranny of the majority.”
Point of order: “Assless chaps” is a meaningless term unless you’re talking about somebody in line for a butt transplant. There’s no such thing as “assed chaps” unless you’re talking about “pants.”
The US isn’t a democracy, it’s a democratic republic. A pure democracy would be a disaster because the people en masse are fucking morons. Most Americans want flag burning to be illegal? Well 2/3 of Americans also think Creationism should be taught in schools. “The people” are as dumb as fucking dirt and are incapable, as a mob, of enforcing and protecting their own constitutional rights. If it was up to the rabble we’d probably still have slavery and we’d still be burning witches at the stake. There’s nothing noble or sacred about the will of the people. The whole point of the Firts Amendment is to PROTECT us from the will of the people.
Pffft.
The Constitution is the will the people. It wasn’t handed down from on high… it was voted on by the people (those who had the vote at the time). The constitution only protects us against the “rabble” in as much as it takes a super-majority to change it.
BTW, it was “ther rabble” that voted in the 13th amendment, so your statement about slavery is absolute bullshit. You are trying to defend an elitist view of governance that I find abhorant.
I’m not an elitist, I’m a misanthrope. I don’t like the elite either but mobs are just plain dangerous. They’re tribalistic and mindless and violent. They fear science and worship magic. If it wasn’t for our republican buffers (small ‘r’) we’d be the Christian Saudi Arabia. Would YOU like to live in a pure democracy, John? Should we put the teaching of creationism up for a popular referendum? Do YOU trust the mob?
OK, that’s better! 
I don’t see any real difference between “the people” and “the legislatures elected by the people”, so when I say “the will of the people”, I really do mean “… as expressed thru their elected officials.” I don’t support a pure democracy mainly because I don’t think it’s practical, not because I am ideologically against it. Do you honestly think that legislators get elected only by tricking people into thinking they have similar views to the people who elect them-- that they actually plan to vote differently once elected?
Take this flag buring amendment issue, for example. Public opinion polls are a bit tricky to go by sometimes, but given that’s all we really have on it let’s take a look. Support for this amendment among “the rabble” is actually less than it was in the Senate! As for evolution, do you really think that if you took a poll of members of the House on whether creationism should be taught in schools you get a number significantly different than that of the general populace?
One thing that can be said about “the people” is that they don’t have to pander to some odd demographic in order to get elected. Further, I have no doubt that if “the people” wanted to create a Christian Saudia Arabia here in the US, the election process wouldn’t stop them. So no, I don’t accept your thesis about that being the inevitable outcome of direct democracy.
Bite my bag.
This is not Devil’s Advocate or shit-stirring. It’s an effort to distinguish, and comment upon, the demonization of opposing political viewpoints.
No, no chance that they honestly felt that this measure had merit.
I would have voted against. But I wouldn’t have told my fellow Senators voting ‘for’ that they were lying fuckwits.
[Elvis] Hunk o’ burnin’ burnin’ love[/Elvis]
ROFL
They should also take a good look at a certain president who was photographed autographing flags. That’s defacement, isn’t it??
Which is exactly what the Flag Burning Amendment is designed to do.
I see what you’re saying, but I still disagree. There is no viewpoint that is being silenced, since whatever viewpoint one espouses by flag desecration (and there are quite a few that could be espoused) can be so espoused by many other means. Yes, it limits speech, but in recognition of a symbol of the country to which we all belong. This is a balance of rights against civil behavior in a civilized society. We don’t allow public nudity as a form of free speech, but we allow for people to advocate for public nudity. If there were a rash of amendments focused on stamping out anti-goverment behavior, I would agree with you. But I don’t see an anti-Constitution desecration amendment on the horizon, or any other such amendment.
Still, I can see your point of view and can see how someone can legitamtely come to that conclusion.
This just in from the future:
"The Supreme Court in a 8-1 decision ruled that assless chaps made from red, white and blue bunting did not violate the XXVIII Amendment, Justice Kinky Friedman was the lone deserter.
"Law scholars this is in keeping with last year’s ruling that an American flag thong was not a violation, but a full bikini bottom was.
“The Court is clearly signaling that contact with the rectal area is what they are looking at do decide this issue.” said noted liberal Orrin Hatch from his prison cell.
Then start your own fucking thread, and complain about it in there. All too often you drive-by argue some vague, rhetorical point-of-order which is only tangentially related to the subject at hand. Stop derailing threads just for the sake of argument.
I’m not going to claim I’m better at debate than you are- that’d be foolish. I know you’re better at it than I am. However, it seems that most of your initial posts in any thread are merely attempt to poke holes in the thread, itself, rather than to argue one side or the other.
For example, what was your first post in this thread? Ah, here it is:
Bolding mine. You even admit that you don’t have a horse in this race- but you still attack the OP on his complaint. That’s what I’m finding annoying.
What sucks is that I’m doing the same damn thing, right now. Dammit.
Yes, it absolutely is.
I consider it a MAJOR immoral act because it opens the door to other opportunities to suppress free speech. It sends the message that if you’re not a My Country Right Or Wrong-er, you’re not worthy of expressing your convictions, because your convictions are automatically anti-freedom. And that’s what we’re talking about, isn’t it? America is synonomous with freedom, so if you don’t like what America is doing, you’re one of “them.” Fuck that, and fuck them. It’s blackmail.
Few so concisely, or powerfully; if there is anything the media age has given us, it’s knowledge of the power of the image. In any case, do you really believe that the motive behind banning flag-burning is unrelated to the viewpoint(s) it espouses? I find it very difficult to believe that this isn’t about silencing a particular message; the argument that there are other ways to express it is unpersuasive, since by banning this form of expression we’re opening the door to banning other forms of expression we find unpatriotic and hurtful. And as it’s already been agreed that burning a flag to respectfully dispose of it would not be illegal, it seems to me that the ban would be very specifically aimed at the message, not the act.
Well no, because there’s already this, and as seems fairly obvious, this is a cynical bit of vote-buying so no more is “needed” at present. But what’s next? Let’s assume we do ban flag-burning; what flaming bandwagon do the nation’s teary-eyed patriots jump on the next time they want to stir up a vote or two? Constitution? Presidential caricatures? It doesn’t need to be realistic, after all; where are all these flag-burnings that we’re apparently so worried about? It’s all stuff and nonsense, and because this proposed amendment is so pointless I see no reason to believe that it’ll be the end of it if it passes.
It’s not clear that YOU realize what you’re defending either.
Then it should be easy for you to articulate what the “reasonable” position in favor of limiting political speech would be. But you haven’t even tried. You haven’t even shown an awareness that it’s been discussed and litigated and ruled upon already, despite your willingness to denigrate those who agree with it as having “leapt” to that conclusion. But if there is in fact no reasonable opposing position, as is apparent to most of us, then it is not only reasonable but necessary to point that out - and you’re out of line to complain about that.
So go ahead. You’re an articulate guy; go ahead and describe this position you claim is “conceptually” “reasonable”. Show us you’re not simply trolling.
Considering that this was immediately after the half of “the rabble” on that side of the question had beaten up the half of “the rabble” that was on the other, this is a less than impressive example.