Does that bother you in any way?
The last constitutional amendment, ratified in 1992, affected very few Americans indeed. I’m not sure that this is such a compelling argument.
I wouldn’t vote for it.
No weaseling. Why wouldn’t you?
How is that weaseling?
I wouldn’t vote for it because I think, if you own a flag, you should be able to do what you please with it. It’s your flag, paid for with your money. Wear it, wipe your ass with it, burn it… it’s yours.
Nothing to do with the necessity of freedom of political expression? You disappoint me.
Is it not good enough that Bricker is on our side on this issue? Must his reasons be good enough for you as well?
Bricker, I hope that your standing as a sound Republican has an influence on your Senators when you let them know your feelings on this issue.
I would argue that the 27th Amendment affects all Americans by protecting them from pecuniary corruption in the legislative process. It prevents (or at least inhibits) elected representatives from taking unfair advantage of their positions. I would think that any Amendments which regulate the behavior of the government (specifically, to protect the public from excesses) would indeed qualify as “important public policy issues” which affect all Americans.
Flag burning affects nobody and banning it protects nobody.
Yes. If he isn’t committed to the *spirit * of the First Amendment as well as its text, then he isn’t really “on our side”, is he? You should be aware of his history of total devotion to narrow textualism and disregard, even unawareness, of spirit.
I am aware. He is not on my list of spiritual allies. Nevertheless, I’ll take my pragmatic allies where I find them, without probing for purity of thought.
Everybody knows where I stand on this issue by now. But I have a quick question for the free speech zealots in this thread.
The Supreme Court explicitly disallowed a class of intimidating and inflammatory expression in the case of Virginia v. Black, where they upheld a law prohibiting the burning of crosses on private property.
All well and good, I say. While freedom of speech must be preserved, the burning of a cross is intimately connected not with speech, but with conduct that cannot be tolerated.
Yet the Supreme Court saw differently when it came to the flag, even though many people see the burning of the flag as a provocative act. And the burning of a cross as a provocative act could be banned, but this one could not be.
I don’t think these opinions can be squared with each other.
I’m not offering this as a defense of cross burning, as I think the Supreme Court was right, and the Virginia law was proper in this case. Rather, I think the Supreme Court was wrong to strike flag burning laws at the state level in the first place.
The fact that there hasn’t been a rash of flag burning, even when it was illegal, shows me that prosecutorial discretion and a general respect for the flag was keeping this problem under control.
I don’t support a constitutional amendment, and have said so. But the Supreme Court erred, and the status quo ante was to be preferred.
IMHO, of course.
I’d imagine the law would prohibit burning the flag of the United States, not just “a flag”. So, the 51 stars would be ok. Honestly, though, I don’t see that this amendment is a big deal either way. First off, except at protests Bricker goes to, I can’t think that burning the American flag is all that common. This whole thing, on both sides, is just symbolic crap that doesn’t affect anyone either way. If both sides were going to be practical, the pro-amendment people would see that there’s a lot of bigger problems with the country than that a few idiots at a protest burn US flags, and the anti-amendment people would see that banning flag burning isn’t the same thing as it being illegal to criticize the government or whatever.
What, are you saying that’s not the case? Damn, you just described a typical Saturday around Casa Guin.
I believe that people should have the right to burn crosses on their own property or even in public. They don’t have the right to do it on someone else’s property, and they don’t have a right to make threats while they’re doing it, but hate speech is still free, no matter how stupid or repugnant.
But burning a cross isn’t seen as merely provocative, but overtly threatening and intimidating. Historically, anyone burning a cross wasn’t simply trying to get attention to a cause, but sending a very obvious “message” to a specific group of people.
The burning of the flag has not ever had the same type of connotations.
Senators Clinton and Schumer haven’t yet had the opportunity to vote on this resolution. Senator Clinton has publicly stated she would vote No when this hits the Senate. The Senate needs 67 Yes votes, and it’s very close.
Here are how NY representatives voted:
No, I don’t know who “Vel IA !zquez” is either. My representative, Weiner, voted No, so I wrote him thanking him. I need to let him know my opinion on matters more often, for whatever little it is worth.
And as for Representative Cunningham, the sponsor of the bill - what a fucktard. He was 5000 miles away from any danger on September 11, 2001. I was 100 yards (not including vertical distance of about 60 floors). Not only do I not support this bill, but I think it plays directly into the hands of those who attacked us. He needs to be voted out of political office and reduced to selling ice cubes in Nome, Alaska.
So we’re allowed to ban some kinds of really hurtful expression, but other kinds we have to allow? And where is that line to be drawn?
I could as easily justify a ban on flag burning by saying it intimidates certain people. I certainly don’t feel comfortable, as a veteran and a political conservative, being close by when the flag is burned.
Yes, there is a long history of veterans and political conservatives being terrorized and lynched by mobs of flag burning hippies. :rolleyes:
People should be free to express themselves is not hurtful, while “I don’t want any blacks here.” is.
One is a tall cross section of wood, destroyed by means of gasoline, and possibly a bonefire. The other is a nylon yard flag, ignited by means of cardboard match, available free with a pack o’ smokes. You can claim to be intimidated by a free book of match, with no bonefires or gasoline at the scene, but I am not going to believe you for a second.
Is burning a cross prohibited on one’s OWN property, or just the property of other people? If it’s the former, then that’s wrong, but if it’s the latter, well, that’s just common sense. I don’t think I’m allowed to burn jackshit on anyone else’s property.
As for my own, as long as I’m not violating any safety regs, (building a towering inferno of old tires, gas cans and fireworks), I’m home free.