Posted on 06/20/2005 10:35:24 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
I always thought the argument here was not that there was a right to abortion (all actions not specifically prohibited are allowed ... there's no ANTI-abortion amendment in the Constitution) ... but that the act of abortion infringed (to say the least) the rights of another living individual ... which is why the argument always comes back down to "when does life begin". Many abortion supporters justify their actions by saying the fetus is not truly alive.
A simple amendment defining when life (and citizenship) officially begins would cut through a lot of the argument.
But, back on topic, rights aren't LIMITED to what is in the Constitution.
A federal judge ruled that individuals have no fundamental constitutional right to smoke tobacco. Why not?
Judicial activism? Why doesn't this apply to alcohol as well? Are we going to use the fact that judges make bad decisions as a reason to make another bad decision and take away more rights?
I also checked the 14th Amendment per privacy and was unable to locate a right to abortion.
I checked the 14th Amendment and found no right for me to own a dog. Or to whistle.
So one may abort, cannot smoke, but may burn flags?
Are you saying we should go for the trifecta?
As I inquired previously, as far as the desecration of the Koran is concerned, why are military personal being disciplined for possible destruction of it and nobody is concerned about the crosses which fall into the dirt after the beheadings
Political games by the liberals? (And, a serious question: DOes freedom of speech apply when on active duty?) Also, I am concerned about the crosses which fall into the dirt after the beheadings ... but not because of the crosses. It's because people ARE BEING BEHEADED! Would the beheadings by in ANY WAY more acceptable if there were not "crosses falling in to the dirt"?
Abortion is make believe. The 14th Amendment is referenced as right to privacy of the unborn, as stated. Smoking is simply one example of thousands of freedoms the courts have seen fit to adjudicate as not. The beheadings are what they are, ignored. It truly concerns me when people fight for the right to to burn our flag while judges are providing terrorists who destroy the same, let alone our country and military with constitutional rights...
Then what is everyone protesting about?
The 14th Amendment is referenced as right to privacy of the unborn, as stated.
So? Lots of people on each side of the argument bring in incorrect interpretations of the law. The 14th Amendment, Section 1, DOES make clear that the unborn are not citizens (as it does specifically state "born" as a requirement) but does immediately beg the question that if born can be a modifier on person, and the born modifier is not used for person when it comes to the protection of life in the same article, what is the definition of personhood? And that is where that battle should be fought ... if you define a person, the defined is protected by the 14th Amendment. (So, the 14th Amendment is actually a more pro-life-leaning Amendment anyway, I don't know why the pro-choice people try to fighht it out there). But none of that has much to do with flag-burning, does it?
Unless you take the position that we only have the rights GRANTED us by the Constitution, as opposed the the reality that government only have the powers we grant it. Let's get off abortion, though, as I'd have to come dangerously close to appear to support the pro-choicers to argue my point there. (But, to clarify, define a fetus as a person, and the Constitution will protect it. If you don't, it doesn't.)
Smoking is simply one example of thousands of freedoms the courts have seen fit to adjudicate as not.
Fascinating. So, the courts are always right? Because the courts take away something that was a right, we should vote, take a poll, or allow and Amendment that takes away another right?
The beheadings are what they are, ignored.
Self-contradictory statement, but I agree with the sentiment.
It truly concerns me when people fight for the right to to burn our flag while judges are providing terrorists who destroy the same, let alone our country and military with constitutional rights...
It truly concerns ME that plenty of people on a supposedly conservative message board would push for politically correct feel-good legislation that chips away at everyone's rights while providing protection to no one. What is the point?
And why just the flag? Why don't we protect all symbols of the government? Defacing anything of, for or by the goevernment should be punishable by law! All the funny photoshopped images posted on this site would result in a prison term, how about that?
Someone should try to answer this: 1) What rights would a flag-burning amendment protect? 2) If none, point out some other Amendments that only take away rights. Prohibition doesn't count.
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 17 - COINS AND CURRENCY
§ 333. Mutilation of national bank obligations
“Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
You own your money too.
There used to be laws in the Federal code preventing descecration of the flag. It was the Supreme Court that overturned those laws hence the need for a Constitutional amemdment.
Previous to Flag Day, June 14, 1923 there were no federal or state regulations governing display of the United States Flag. It was on this date that the National Flag Code was adopted by the National Flag Conference which was attended by representatives of the Army and Navy which had evolved their own procedures, and some 66 other national groups. This purpose of providing guidance based on the Army and Navy procedures relating to display and associated questions about the U.S. Flag was adopted by all organizations in attendance.
A few minor changes were made a year later during the Flag Day 1924 Conference. It was not until June 22, 1942 that Congress passed a joint resolution which was amended on December 22, 1942 to become Public Law 829; Chapter 806, 77th Congress, 2nd session. Exact rules for use and display of the flag (36 U.S.C. 173-178) as well as associated sections (36 U.S.C. 171) Conduct during Playing of the National Anthem, (36 U.S.C. 172) the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Manner of Delivery were included.
The code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law.
Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.
Bullwinkle.
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." -Jesus of Nazareth
Hopefully the Patriot Act will see the same demise.
You must be joking. If we don't give our people the same legal tools in the WOT that we give to those pursuing drug dealers, then we are indeed in trouble. The demise of the Patriot act will be followed by the demise of some of our fellow Americans.
Fine. Then you'll get what you are asking for. "Your papers, please."
The demise of the Patriot act will be followed by the demise of some of our fellow Americans.
Some of our fellow Americans are meeting their demise this very day in order to assure our liberty and that of our posterity.
If the events of September 11, 2001 happened because we didn't have enough laws on the books or because Americans had too many God-given rights, then I want my damned money back!
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
----Patrick Henry_______March 23, 1775.
If you believe we are at war, and I do, special circumstances call for special measures. I wish we did have a "Your papers, please" mentality in view of the millions of illegal aliens pouring through our borders.
Some of our fellow Americans are meeting their demise this very day in order to assure our liberty and that of our posterity.
That's exactly right. As someone who has served in uniform in a war, I believe we should do everything possible to support our troops in the field and defend their families at home. We lost approximately 3000 people on 9/11 due to bad intelligence and artificial bureaucratic barriers, which prevented the exchange of information. Until 9/11 we were pursuing terrorists as criminals and not as combatants. We were concerned about protecting their rights so the intelligence side of the house couldn't exchange information with the criminal side.
If the events of September 11, 2001 happened because we didn't have enough laws on the books or because Americans had too many God-given rights, then I want my damned money back!
Neither is the case nor is it an either/or proposition. If you think living under the Patriot Act has affected your rights, then take your money and go somewhere else where you feel more free. WE ARE AT WAR. IT ISN'T OVER YET. HELLO.
Well Jiminy Cricket. Later kabar...
A little anecdote, if you will...
Many moons ago when I was a freshman in college and this same debate was on the Congressional floor, (circa 1990, give or take a year), I felt the same way then as I do now. I even used it as a topic for a speech class I was taking. Around this time, I went to California with my folks to visit my sister and her Navy Officer Husband. I was warned before going to keep my position (anti-amendment) on this quiet, because, you know, he's "in the navy and all that".
I did keep my mouth shut about it, as not to start a family war for having such liberal ideas. But as I lay sleeping on the couch, I heard my name mentioned, so I decided to play "possum", to hear what was about to unfold. My mother actually told this NAVY OFFICER (not an ensign,either, way up the chain of command) my views on the subject.
Now I never got along with this person,and he was never really fond of me) so I was waiting to be handed a sleeping blanket and shown the door, but he said the following statement:
"Wow. I'm surprised. C.... is pretty intelligent."
Mother...."What? You don't think she's wrong? You're in the military. You DEFEND that flag!!"
Naval Officer: "No I don't. I took an oath to defend the Constitution. No flag involved."
That person has been in the military for over 20 years and STILL SERVING. I may not like him (for reasons having nothing to do with his veteran status), but I respect him for spending the better part of his life knowing EXACTLY what he took an oath to do.
On another point, anyone who claims to be a Christian, should understand that by calling it "flag desecration", you are putting it in a religious context. Last time I checked, we still had this thing called "separation of church and state". As a Christian myself, I worship nothing besides God and His Son, Jesus Christ. And maybe Jimmy Buffett. He tours more.
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.