This is a day late because I am working on another project, but I wanted to say a few words about the flag-burning amendment that failed in the Senate the other day.
The fact that I am/was a Republican probably makes you think that I was all for this move, which was largely supported by Republicans, or at least that’s how the media is portraying it (I haven’t actually looked at the vote break-down) - unless, you regularly read this blog with an open mind to my positions.
If the latter is the case, you know full well that I completely oppose this idea.
The reason the flag-burning law was shot down by the Supreme Court was because it is a violation of free speech. If we amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, it is still a violation of free speech, only now it is imbedded in our Constitution making it a contradiction of itself. What an insult.
The purpose of the First Amendment was to protect our right to express our dissent from the government. The First Amendment protects us from the government interfering with our free expression, be it political, religious, or other.
That means, anti-American nut-jobs have the right to burn the flag, a political candidate has the right to spend millions of dollars (his or others’) trying to build name recognition, churches have the right to think homosexuality is wrong, protesters have the right to call the president names and scream about “blood for oil,” protesters have the right to carry signs with pictures of aborted fetuses, and the government (that includes you, too) does not have the right to stop them.
I am totally at a loss as to why one side supports freedom only when it suits them and the other side supports freedom only when it suits them. It’s all or nothing, people. Either we are free or we’re not. If you are allowed to subvert the Constitution and restrict our freedom for your agenda, what do you think the other guys will do when they are the ones in power?
This has been a victorious week for the Constitution. Thank God because I was really starting to get worried.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Charity wrote:
if we amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, it is still a violation of free speech, only now it is imbedded in our Constitution making it a contradiction of itself. What an insult.
Bravo!!
The unintended consequences of a flag burning amendment will be more flag burning, since getting arrested for burning a flag will be big press for whomever the protester is.
July 1st, 2006 at 1:02 am
I’m with you on this one Charity. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (who totally supported the amendment) and he kept saying “is fire speech? fire isn’t speech, blah blah blah” And then he said that if it is legal, people could just as easily burn down someone elses house claiming that it’s “free speech.”
WHat a retarded argument. Nobody is talking about changing property rights here. Based on his logic, you could just as easily say that participating in a nonviolent peace march isn’t speech either (because walking isn’t speaking). Yet nobody (right or left) could deny that that marching is covered by the 1st Amendment.
Free speech means allowing things that aren’t popular or even nice - like the KKK bastards marching around in their ghost costumes, or a pro/anti abortion march, a peace rally, a globalization march, and yes, even flag burning. I certainly wouldn’t join in for any of that, but I defend people’s rights to partake if they want. These things may be distasteful to some but “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes)
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:59 am
Oh well Limbaugh is full of retarded arguments, like soldiers deaths in Iraq are ok, because more Americans drown in their bathtubs every year, or some such nonsense. The difference, of course, is that bathtub drownings don’t result from political decisions.
How about stamping ‘made in china’ right on the thing? Is that better than burning it? I’m not so sure. I can’t believe it got 66 votes. Scary.