I thought we democrats were talking about burning the constitution, not amending it.
/Sarcasm OFF
Posted on 06/13/2006 11:44:31 AM PDT by pissant
The Constitution should not be further amended.
The tide may be turning. The dems can't afford to be seen as the real quislings that they are.
Maybe. But it is overdue and so is the FMA.
I thought we democrats were talking about burning the constitution, not amending it.
/Sarcasm OFF
Nonsense. They put a device for amending it in for a reason. To allow changes. It is the ONLY way it should be changed, not through the courts or through crappy laws that infringe on it.
This should have been done many years ago. The sooner this bill is passed and signed the better. That, and the amendment making traditional marriage an amendment, and a return to prayer to school for those who want to would be nice too.
Shut up Dingy, we were talking about democrats burning the flag not the U.S. Consitution!
/Sarcasm OFF
A solution looking for a problem.
There have been several amendments over the years, and there are some big problems as a result. FreeRepublic itself was formed partly to see about fixing some of these ill-advised amendments, and it might be well to make those fixes before creating some new screw-ups.
Teddy, I voted for the Marraige amendment before I voted against Holy Marraige. Don't I get to be President now?
/Sarcasm off
John, were talking about democrats burning the flag not about your marraige.
/Sarcasm OFF
Perfect. Roll them all into one amendment.
Below is Article 14 of the Greek Constitution:
http://www.hri.org/docs/syntagma/
Do you have a cite for the specific law?
(ps: just for fun, article three would emotionally kill the ACLU)
Article 14
1. Every person may express and propagate his thoughts orally, in writing and through the press in compliance with the laws of the State.
2. The press is free. Censorship and all other preventive measures are prohibited.
3. The seizure of newspapers and other publications before or after circulation is prohibited.
Seizure by order of the public prosecutor shall be allowed exceptionally after circulation and in case of:
a) an offence against the Christian or any other known religion.
b) an insult against the person of the President of the Republic.
c) a publication which discloses information on the composition, equipment and set-up of the armed forces or the fortifica-tions of the country, or which aims at the violent overthrow of the regime or is directed against the territorial integrity of the State.
d) an obscene publication which is obviously offensive to public decency, in the cases stipulated by law.
4. In all the cases specified under the preceding paragraph, the public prosecutor must, within twenty-four hours from the seizure, submit the case to the judicial council which, within the next twenty-four hours, must rule whether the seizure is to be maintained or lifted; otherwise it shall be lifted ipso jure. An appeal may be lodged with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court by the publisher of the newspaper or other printed matter seized and by the public prosecutor.
5. The manner in which full retraction shall be made in cases of inaccurate publications shall be determined by law.
6. After at least three convictions within five years for the criminal acts defined under paragraph 3, the court shall order the definitive ban or the temporary suspension of the publication of the paper and, in severe cases, shall prohibit the convicted person from practising the profession of journalist as specified by law. The ban or suspension of publication shall be effective as of the date the court order becomes irrevocable.
7. Press offences shall be subject to immediate court hearing and shall be tried as provided by law.
8. The conditions and qualifications requisite for the practice of the profession of journalist shall be specified by law.
9. The law may specify that the means of financing newspapers and periodicals should be disclosed.
The problem was the Supreme court ruling it was "constitutional". It's America's way of telling the courts to shove it up their ass.
Really, I don't think the founders would have thought of flag burning as "speech" any more than they would have thought that Barney Frank sodomizing his boyfriend was constitutionally protected "privacy".
Democrats: "there's a constitution? when did the UN give us that? is there a translation into english?"
There have been ill advised amendments and there have been others that have been right on the money.
Will they specify how to dispose of an old, worn out flag? The flag code says it should be burned.
McCain supports it for now; if it looks like there will be 67 one of the "supporters" will change their minds rather than moving the issue to the states. Incidently, I asked my very liberal state rep what he thought would happen if the bill were taken up by the Massachusetts State House and he said he'd vote against it but that he was certain Massachusetts would vote "aye".
Burning for disposal will be allowed, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.