Isn’t it already illegal to light fires on city streets and parks, outside of a BBQ?
And the fact that such blatantly manipulative tactics actually work (otherwise, why use them repeatedly?) says a lot of unpleasant things about the American citizenry today. 
What drives me crazy is that proponents talk about banning burning THE flag rather than A flag. It’s not like the Statue of Liberty or the White House or the Liberty Bell where there really is only one of them. If I burn my US flag it doesn’t affect all the other US flags.
If three-fourths of the states, and both houses of Congress, pass this amendment… does it not suggest that it represents the will of the majority?
And if it does… then what’s the problem? There are plenty of amendments, and interpretations thereof, that I don’t like, but they are the law of the land. I accept that I alone am not the sole arbiter of What Is Right; I must accept the democratically-enacted legislation and procedurally correct interpretation that shapes our laws.
Apparently, though, this is true for others only if they agree with the change.
We’ve never abridged the first amendment before, though, Bricker. Freedom of speech is not supposed to be subject to the whims of the majority. If we can pass this, then how about an amendment forbidding certain kinds of religious expression? What’s the difference?
I don’t understand why they want to put people behind bars because they dissrespected a piece of cloth.
Perhaps, but natural rights should not be subject to infringement just because the majority wants to infringe upon them.
No, just becaues a majority wants something does not mean it’s right. The majority of people in this country once supported slavery, but no matter how many people supported it, slavery was never morally right. Similarly, Hitler had the support of the majority of Germans, but I don’t think you’d be condoning what he did, would you? Laws which are popular can be, and often are, wrong. Political minorities have certain rights which the majority should not infringe upon, and the Founders recognized this when they warned against the tyranny of the majority. We don’t have a responsibility to accept or obey these laws, any more than blacks in the South had a responsibility to accept or obey unjust and immoral Jim Crow laws (also supported by the majority of people). Unjust laws demand disobedience.
I personally will be surprised if it does - but post 9-11 anything is possible, I guess.
If it does, the Supreme Court still has the option to throw it out. (Doesn’t it?)
This tiresome argument makes me crazy. I seriously doubt it will pass.
The Supreme Court is bound by any Constitutional amendment, so they couldn’t say this amendment is unconstitutional. It would be the surpreme law of the land.
Are you a communist???
-Jadoku himself
Personally, I cannot stand flag burners. I think that they have elevated asshattery to new heights.
Having vented my spleen, I will now say that they have a Constitutional right to do so and it should be kept that way.
At least while they’re burning flags they aren’t Telemarketing…
I was wondering somewhat the same thing. What if the Supreme Court found an amendment to be in contradiction to an existing one? As far as I know, this hasn’t been the case with flag buring laws, but suppose an amendent passed which banned public criticism of the president? Perhaps that’s too crazy an idea…
The amendment which came later on would supercede any previous amendments to the contrary.
This does nothing except legislate patriotism, something which cannot be done.
If you arrest and jail people for disrespecting the flag, you will only turn them into martyrs.
Until the Court so ruled, it was not entirely clear that flag burning was expressive speech that was protected by the First Amendment. The passage of a flag protection amendment would be the people of the United States saying, in effect, that we don’t wish to extend the definition of free speech to burning the American flag.
Since the Constitution is amendable, there is no legal difference between this and the spectre you raise: forbidding types of religious expression. The difference is that I suspect most people in the country are comfortable with the minimal restrictions that now exist on religious expression.
I would not be in favor of changing the weights on that balance test… but I would support an amendment that excluded burning the American flag from the arena of protected free speech.
The difficulty in amending the Constitution is one of the methods by which the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority – but if those difficulties are overcome, then the amendment becomes a legal and properly expressed implementation of the democratic process. You cannot suggest it’s undemocratic, if it’s put in place by these means.
Heh.
No. The Supreme Court must follow the Constitution. A properly-passed Constitutional amendment cannot be “unconstitutional.”
Why would you support this?
Yes. Although the rules of statutory construction mandate that to the extent possible, both laws must be read in pari materia - that is, together, giving full effect to each if possible.
So if an amendment passed forbidding criticism of the president, that would not invalidate your First Amendment right to, for example, criticize your senators. The two amendments would be read together, with the result being that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech, EXCEPT when it comes to the president.
- Rick
Because I believe the impact against the bastions of free speech is slight, and the symbolic value of the flag worth protecting; because I do not believe that flag burning is “pure speech” and entitled to the most stringent protections that pure speech deserves; because both Texas v. Johnson and US v. Eichman were decided by 5-4 votes; and because the government has, in my view, a compelling interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity.
- Rick
Questions:
What is “symbolic value” and how can it be destroyed?
How would you define “flag?”
How would you define “desecration?”