Posted on 06/23/2006 9:03:33 AM PDT by presidio9
Nearly 30 years after Chicago Cubs outfielder Rick Monday snatched an American flag from two idiots at Dodger Stadium who had doused it in lighter fluid and were trying to light it with a match, we still applaud him for his exemplary act of patriotism for acting on our behalf. As devoted as we are to free speech, we would have been hard-pressed to bottle our anger over the desecration of the Stars and Stripes before tens of thousand of spectators.
Our appreciation of Monday was not diminished by his appearance last week at a rally for a proposed flag desecration amendment an event at which he exhibited the rescued flag, which was presented to him by the Dodgers.
But however heartfelt this gesture was, it was wrong-headed in lending support to a manufactured cause with no real value except a political one.
You would think, from the emotional momentum this issue has gained in recent times, there is a pressing need for an anti-flag-burning amendment. Most Americans are in favor of it. The House has backed the amendment, and the Senate may well follow suit next week, when it is scheduled to decide on the constitutional ban. Reportedly, it is within a vote or two of the two-thirds majority it needs. In 2000, it fell four votes short.
But, in fact, this is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Flag burnings, which most of us associate with Vietnam-era protests, have all but disappeared from the American landscape. No protests of the war in Iraq (which have been relatively few) have featured flag desecrations. The closest anyone has come to publicly mistreating the flag, arguably, was a case of two of athletes wrapping themselves in it at the Olympics.
You would also think this is an issue in need of legal clarification. But the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that as distasteful or offensive as this kind of protest is, it is protected by the
First Amendment. A year later, the high court overturned the federal Flag Protection Act.
The fact that yet another effort is being mounted tells you not that the principles have changed, but the political climate has. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to alter the constitution.
This represents the consensus of the Sun-Times News Group of 100 newspapers in the Chicago area.
Correction: a career in law or politics and not directly accountable to the voters.
I don't like it when people talk on their cell phones on line at the airport. We should get a Constitutional Amendment about it.
/same logic as Flag Amendment
I don't like it when people talk on their cell phones on line at the airport. We should get a Constitutional Amendment about it.
Again, that statement is just plain ignorant. How in God's name did you ever become a Conservative?
Cool. You discovered that a younger Reagan experimented with libertarianism in the 1970's. Before that he was a registered Deomcrat. He even signed an abortion bill into law as Governor of California. Then he saw the light. Can you tell me what were President Reagan's positions on Legalized drugs/abortion?
Seriously, if that's all you've got I'm disappointed. Make a point or don't but don't post just for the sake of getting the last word in.
I agree with Scalia 99% of the time. However, given the choice of calling myself a Reagan Conservative or a Scalia Conservative, I'll pick Reagan. Since our beloved leader has left us, I've taken to looking to Newt Gingrich for my cues. Want to guess which way he leans? The point is, we need to accept the fact that soldiers have died for the American Flag. It is more than the sum of its fabrics. Many of our soldiers have laid down their lives for it. As such, it deserves special protection. In your learned opinion, I'm guessing that a guy blowing up a pile of copper would deserve exactly the same penalty as some raghead blowing up the Statue of Liberty. "Free Speech," right? Not in mine.
You mean something substantive like "go find a Republican site and have at it"? Which of course came after the "point" I made.
I'm sure you can produce a quote in which Reagan declares that the essence of conservatism is to be found in the platform of the Democrats.
Or, failing that, (since I just know that you are an intellectually honest sort), I'm sure you'll admit that you just popped off a bit of irrelevant nonsense.
Nonsense. Soldiers have died for the American Republic, but only an idiot would die for a piece of dyed cloth as such.
Well, then, I trust that your spouse, if you have one, has taken the precaution of securing independent means of support in case of serious illness.
Blowing up a Statue of Liberty (of the sort anybody can buy in a knickknack shop) does indeed carry the same penalty as blowing up the same quantity of unsculpted copper (i.e. you might get in trouble for reckless use of explosives, polluting the environment with metal dust, etc).
This is as it should be, and is an exact analogy for burning a generic flag (as opposed to, say, a specific historical specimen such as the Fort McHenry War of 1812 flag).
Excellent analogy. While we're at it, how about a Constitutional amendment against those annoying little yappy dogs?
Burning an inanimate object is free speech. It might be stupid free speech but it is still free speech.
Obviously the inanimate object in question should also be owned by the person who is doing the burning.
Everybody equates the amendment's use of the word "desecration" with burning. If and when this abomination ever passes, it will then be up to Congress, the Courts, every local cop, to figure out what desecration means. See a young lady with a handbag, or jeans with a flag incorporated into them? Find it offensive (I personally don't like that kind of flag use). Call 911 and press option 2 "if this is an emergency where something or someone really offends you."
I identify with Reagan more than Scalia as well. My point is that this is not an issue that defines your ideology. While most in favor of the amendment are "conservative", reasonable conservatives disagree on the issue - like Scalia and (likely) Alito. What defines you as "conservative" is the rationale behind your stance. And yes, some "libertarians" (like Dick Armey for example) are decidedly conservative.
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.