For fuck's sake, the flag burning amendment AGAIN?!

[Northern_Piper]

@Indyellen

While I personally agree with the Congress of that era that the Eighteenth Amendment was a damned stupid idea (thus the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment), they at least seemed to have a more valid legal footing than the current proposal does. The current proposal is directly written to circumvent SCOTUS, thereby affecting the checks & balances system.

How does it affect the checks & balances? And what’s wrong with overturning a SCOTUS decision that the elected officials do not agree with, anyway?

This kind of thing can happen with ordinary laws: Congress passes a law; SCOTUS gives a decision interpreting it; Congress doesn’t like the way SCOTUS has interpreted the law; Congress amends the law to overcome the decision. That’s not a breach of the checks & balances - that’s the checks & balances in operation, each branch doing its job, with the elected branch having the final say.

The Constitution is the supreme law and accordingly harder to amend, but the process is the same. Like other laws, the courts interpret the Constitution. If the legislators (i.e. - Congress and the state legislatures under the amendment process) don’t like the way the courts have interpreted, they can amend it.

If Congress and the state legislatures could not amend the Constitution to overcome a SCOTUS decision, then the courts would have the final say, and all that blather about living in a judgeocracy, not a democracy, would actually be true. But that’s not the case: the final say rests with the democratically elected Congress critters and statehouse salamanders.

This very thing has already happened on seven separate occasions in the history of the U.S., starting back in 1793: SCOTUS interprets the Constitution in a particular way; elected officials don’t like the interpretation; elected officials in Congress and the statehouses amend the Constitution to change it.

By the way, you do realise that if this weren’t the case, slavery would still be constitutionally protected in the U.S.? It took a constitutional amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decision in Dred Scott and ban slavery.

Here’s the list of amendments that overturned SCOTUS decisions:
[ul][li]XIth Amendment (state immunity from federal court jurisdiction), overturning Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793);[/li]
[li]XIIIth Amendment (abolition of slavery), overturning one aspect of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856);[/li]
[li]XIVth Amendment (citizenship of all individuals born within the jurisdiction of the United States), overturning another aspect of Dred Scott;[/li]
[li]XVIth Amendment (authorising federal income tax), overturning Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895);[/li]
[li]XIXth Amendment (women’s suffrage), overturning Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874);[/li]
[li]XXIVth Amendment (abolition of the poll tax qualification in federal elections), overturning Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937);[/li]
[li]XXVIth Amendment (lowering minimum voting age to 18), overturning one aspect of Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).[/li][/ul]

[Northern_Piper]

@Terrifel

Just out of curiosity, are there any actual statistics on how prevalent flag desecration is in the United States? How often does it happen, anyway? I don’t exactly go out of my way to avoid political rallies and the like, and I haven’t ever personally witnessed a flag being burned. Does the federal government keep track of these incidents, as they do for less serious crimes like rape and murder?

According to USAToday, there’s been precisely one episode of domestic flag-burning in the past year:

Scenes of foreigners burning American flags may be common on TV, but such desecration is rare in this country. The Citizens Flag Alliance, an advocacy group that supports a constitutional amendment, reports a decline in flag desecration incidents, with only one this year.

[Liberal]

A very informative post, Northern Piper. I should like to subscribe to your newsletter providing the word “elucidate” appears nowhere therein except in the context of a random rhetorical non sequitur.

[Fear_Itself]

@Mr. Moto

I was simply making a point that, regardless of the amendment, I didn’t think it was a good idea to go around burning flags. Just my opinion, but I wanted to share it…

Nonetheless, if this amendment is ratified, the sun will be blotted out from the smoke rising from from a million smoldering flags. I for one, will burn one every day of the year until this unamerican law is repealed, and I hope the jails are packed with flag burners, eating three squares a day paid for by Republican taxpayers.

[Evil_Captor]

@Liberal

What happens when two amendments conflict? Can SCROTUS declare this one in contradiction to another?

SCROTUS?

Supreme Court Republicans Of The United States?

Works for me!

[Evil_Captor]

@Pullet

I have to admit that I’m disappointed. We were just learning how to finish knitting doillies and next week we’re learning how to lie still while our husbands kiss us. After all, kissing is a sin, but it is necessary to become pregnant.

If I leave, I guess I’ll have to start screwing my husband like the commoners.

Not to hijack, but how is the way the commoners have been screwing your husband different from the way you do it?

[Indyellen]

@Northern Piper

How does it affect the checks & balances? And what’s wrong with overturning a SCOTUS decision that the elected officials do not agree with, anyway?

Thank you for the post; it was very informative and you make some good points. (This is not a sarcastic comment.) I did point out that IANAL, it was just my initial reading of things.

However, you seem to have missed my second post:

@Indyellen

OK, I’ll grant that it doesn’t appear to be a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers de facto, but it is a violation in spirit.

And I still stand by the fact that removing ANYTHING (whether I personally agree with it or not) from the protections of the First Amendment truly IS a “slippery slope.”

It’s been a while since I had government class in school; it’s easy to forget the details.

I do think the fact that the way the current proposal is worded makes this case different than the ones you’ve cited, but as I’m especially NAConstitutionalL, I’ll defer on discussing the legalities and just agree that I think it’s a STUPID idea when there are much bigger things we could be worrying about.

Don’t get me started on the healthcare system, I might never shut up…

[elucidator]

@Liberal

A very informative post, Northern Piper. I should like to subscribe to your newsletter providing the word “elucidate” appears nowhere therein except in the context of a random rhetorical non sequitur.

My, woke up a bit testy this morning, did we? Rest assured, I mean a mild bit of mockery, but only toward those libertarians who insist that their political philosophy is the precise context relevent to any debate about the infield fly rule, or whether Craftsman tools are superior to Snap-On.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Northern Piper

Here’s the list of amendments that overturned SCOTUS decisions:
[ul][li]XIth Amendment (state immunity from federal court jurisdiction), overturning Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793);[/li]
[li]XIIIth Amendment (abolition of slavery), overturning one aspect of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856);[/li]
[li]XIVth Amendment (citizenship of all individuals born within the jurisdiction of the United States), overturning another aspect of Dred Scott;[/li]
[li]XVIth Amendment (authorising federal income tax), overturning Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895);[/li]
[li]XIXth Amendment (women’s suffrage), overturning Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874);[/li]
[li]XXIVth Amendment (abolition of the poll tax qualification in federal elections), overturning Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937);[/li]
[li]XXVIth Amendment (lowering minimum voting age to 18), overturning one aspect of Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).[/li][/ul]

Seems to me this list makes a compelling case for not amending the Constitution to prohibit flag-burning. Every one of those amendments dealt with an important public policy issue affecting great numbers of Americans. Flag-burning? Not so.

[Evil_Captor]

So, first they do a big whoop-de-do passing a law apologizing for NOT passing a law about lynching – 50 years ago – and now they are on to flag burning.

Definitely, definitely got too much time on their hands.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Evil Captor

So, first they do a big whoop-de-do passing a law apologizing for NOT passing a law about lynching – 50 years ago – and now they are on to flag burning.

Definitely, definitely got too much time on their hands.

Naw, they just discovered voguing and they’re trying to be hip.

[elucidator]

@Mr. Moto

…I didn’t think it was a good idea to go around burning flags. Just my opinion, but I wanted to share it…

Your wording leaves the unfortunate impression that this might be a casual, off-handed sort of action. Go pick up a quart of milk, walk the dog, burn a flag or two.

I have little doubt that I have attended far, far more lefty type demonstrations that have you, likely some before you were even a gleam in Papa Moto’s eye. I have never, even in the dark years, seen a flag burned. Not even once.

It is an extreme gesture, to be sure. It is meant to carry that gravity. I don’t hold with it, myself, but only for tactical reasons, as it infuriates more than it enlightens.

There are, rarely, people worthy of veneration, and ideas. There are no objects sacred, none whatsoever. To revere one’s political persuasion or native state to a level where the word “desecrate” has meaning is a kind of blasphemy even an agnostic can recognize.

[BwanaBob]

@Mr. Moto

… And I regard, and shall always regard, flag burning as a tactic of those who want to provoke rather than inform…

I agree. When I think of flag-burning, I think of those rotten scum in foreign countries shouting “Death to America”.

You want to be like them? Fine. It’s your life. And it’s still legal, for now.

But if this amendment comes to fruition and Congress passes a law prohibiting flag-burning, and I see you burning the flag, I’ll cheerfully call the proper authorities.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

I have little doubt that I have attended far, far more lefty type demonstrations that have you, likely some before you were even a gleam in Papa Moto’s eye. I have never, even in the dark years, seen a flag burned. Not even once.

You’re kidding.

I saw flags burned at the 2000 and 2004 inauguration demontrations. I saw a flag burned at Lafayette Park, across from the White House, during the first Gulf War. I saw a flag burned in front of the World Bank during an anti-globalization protest.

Maybe you just need some help getting into the REAL lefty demonstrations. I could introduce you around…

[Terrifel]

@Bricker

You’re kidding.

I saw flags burned at the 2000 and 2004 inauguration demontrations. I saw a flag burned at Lafayette Park, across from the White House, during the first Gulf War. I saw a flag burned in front of the World Bank during an anti-globalization protest.

Well here’s the source of the problem! Obviously this amendment is attacking this issue the wrong way round. Clearly the best way to keep flags from being burned is to make it unconstitutional for Bricker to attend political events.

The Citizens’ Flag Alliance probably has you under 24-hour surveillance, dude.

[Revtim]

If this passes, I might start a business making Match-Lite type flags. No fluid needed!

[ElvisL1ves]

@Guinastasia

If we’re allowed to dispose of old, tattered flags by burning them, will the police investigate when we do so, to make SURE it was an old, ripped up flag? If my house burns down and I had a flag inside, will I be arrested?

Well, see, that would an act of respect. The flag burnings the tighties want to ban are acts of contempt. It isn’t the flag itself that’s the issue; they want to ban the expression of an opinion.

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

Well, see, that would an act of respect. The flag burnings the tighties want to ban are acts of contempt. It isn’t the flag itself that’s the issue; they want to ban the expression of an opinion.

Correct. The gravamen of the Supreme Court’s decision is that flag-burning is expressive conduct, and thus protected by the First Amendment. The proposed amendment would explcitly remove flag-burning from the realm of protected expressive conduct.

[Revtim]

@BwanaBob

I agree. When I think of flag-burning, I think of those rotten scum in foreign countries shouting “Death to America”.

You want to be like them? Fine. It’s your life. And it’s still legal, for now.

But if this amendment comes to fruition and Congress passes a law prohibiting flag-burning, and I see you burning the flag, I’ll cheerfully call the proper authorities.

In your opinion, do you think the act of flag-burning is a worse thing than laws preventing the expression of opinions?

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Rest assured, I mean a mild bit of mockery, but only toward those libertarians who insist that their political philosophy is the precise context relevent to any debate about the infield fly rule, or whether Craftsman tools are superior to Snap-On.

I thought everyone knew that Snap-On tools could not be produced without coercion.