Posted on 06/24/2005 6:03:01 AM PDT by Tatze
Dear Senator,
I am writing to you today to express my opinion on two different subjects, but both with very serious implications on freedom and liberty in the United States. Our place on the Indexes of Economic and Political Freedom has been slipping recently, and I unfortunately see no turnaround in the trend since Republicans gained control of the Congress and the White House. It began long before Congress passed, and the Supreme Court upheld, McCain-Feingold restricting political free speech in clear violation of the First Amendment right to (political) free speech, but that is just another recent example. It continued with other recent Supreme Court decisions based on international law and public opinion.
The main point of my email today was going to be about displeasure with, and hopes for the defeat of the Flag Burning Amendment. I am very dismayed that I have to agree with some Democrats and the ACLU on this, but burning the flag, as abhorrent as I find it is political speech deserving the protection of the First Amendment. This proposed Amendment trashes the very concept of freedom, liberty, and free speech that the flag represents. How does the old saying go, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Well, hundreds of thousands have died protecting this country and the freedom on which it was founded. This Amendment is an affront to each and every one of them. It is my opinion that this proposed Amendment should be defeated in the US Senate.
And now, the far more disturbing topic of this email, today’s Supreme Court decision allowing Government to seize property from one private owner to give to another private owner. Eminent domain has always been a hot topic for me, as I hear more and more stories of local government abuses. But this is an abuse of the worst kind, because it was perpetrated by the Supreme Court, which is supposed to protect our constitutional rights. This one ruling has practically destroyed the concept of private property rights in the United States. No property is safe, as long as some willing government thinks they can get just a little more tax money from another owner.
There has been quite a few stories in the news recently predicting that the housing bubble is about to burst. If private owners can have no faith that their property is safe from tax hungry politicians, the incentive to invest in real estate will be severely diminished, if not destroyed. Any supposed burst in the housing bubble will look like a walk in the park if this is allowed to stand.
What can Congress do to reverse this ruling? Is Congress willing to do anything, or do you approve of the recent actions of the Supreme Court? Perhaps Congress should propose more Constitutional Amendments that actually protect personal rights and individual freedoms, rather than proposing Amendments that further restrict freedom and liberty.
I have been a strong supporter of the Republican Party, nationally and in Georgia. Through my positions in the Young Republican organization, I have worked to advance many Republican campaigns, including yours. But I am realizing more and more that the campaign promises don’t survive swearing-in, and the party platform isn’t worth the paper it is written on. With very few exceptions, the Republican record over the last few years has been abysmal. Huge increases in (non-defense) spending, a new prescription drug entitlement and bureaucracy, and failure to secure our borders, just to name a few. I hope it won’t become necessary to find another political home, but that is looking more likely every day.
My letter to our local newspaper. Saxby Chambliss' hometown. His daughter married my cousin.
Dear Editor:
The recent ruling of the Supreme Court has many people more than just worried. Many fear for the one of the very things they hold most dear, their homes. Homes some have worked a lifetime for, raised children in, had holidays, grandchildren even generations, only to have a private developer come in under authority of the city, take your land, raze your home to the ground and build a shopping center. All under the auspices of tax revenue. The sad part? It is completely legal, based on a ruling from the highest court in the land.
Congress has the power to prevent this, but rather be concerned about private ownership, they are more concerned with flag burning and are planning to amend the Constitution to that fact.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment. Our House of Representatives, banding together against the Supreme Court’s previous rulings of flag burning, have successfully passed an amendment against desecration of the flag. This amendment is on the way to the Senate for the two thirds vote required to amend our Constitution.
Essentially, it will be perfectly legal for Moultrie or any city to come and take your home away, paying fair market value (so what if the value is less than your mortgage?) to build a private business but yet we will not be able to burn a flag. Destroy your home, but not a flag. Makes perfect sense to me!
There is a war in Iraq, fighting in Afghanistan, we are still looking for bin Laden, and gas prices are continually going up. But our elected officials find it more important to protect a flag than our private property. They will rise up in protest for a flag, but not for your private property.
Do not misunderstand my letter. I take serious issue when my flag is mistreated. I turn the channel or look away when I see anti-Americans burning my flag in protest. However, if it is allowable for a city to burn my house down all in the name of progress, but a citizen cannot burn a flag as a statement of free speech, something is wrong, terribly wrong.
The big question is, will Congress amend the Constitution to protect what is legally yours if they are willing to stand up against the Supreme Court over flag burning?
Think about that. I am, and it scares me.
PING!
And I guess I should have specified, I sent this to Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA). I should probably send a variation of it to Congressman John Linder (R-GA-7). He voted for the Flag Burning Amendment.
What right did the U.S. Supreme Court discover to turn an "act" into "speech". For burning the flag is an "act" and a disrespect of our country and soldier's blood. It is only in modern times that we allow this disrespect of our country and it is time that respect for our country and soldiers to be allowed once more throughout the land.
Good Idea, I will email them to giving them my hearty support for doing so. Hey Freepers. FREEP TIME!
A flag amendment is fine, but I would rather see something protecting the constitution.
I skimmed this and will have to read it later.
I do agree, the McCain-Feingold bill and the property case are horrific miscarriages of justice. (I guess all those liberals who defeated Bork - who would almost certainly have voted down the state land grab - and got Kennedy (the deciding vote approving it) can celebrate their win as they pack their bags and the bulldozers come.)
I agree that neither flag desecration or cross-burning should be banned, UNLESS the activity constitutes some other crime (assault, harassment, arson, vandalism, trespass) as well. These are the most vile acts of "political expression" I can conceive of, but political expression they are. We're strong enough to handle it.
McCain-Feingold and the Flag amendment are both well intentioned, I'm sure. But for some it might just be "feel-good" legislation that curtails our freedoms.
Shame on the congress for passing, Bush for signing, and the Supreme Court for upholding, McCain Feingold.
I think England has a flag desecration ban too. Again, I don't think we need it.
But the McCain-Feingold bill and especially the property case strike real fear in me.
Wake up America!!!
As a slap to these "fine" intellects, it would be nice to have a Maryland/DC/Virginia developer propose to "take" the personal residence of any of those 5 Supreme Courters who voted to allow such things. The residence could surely fetch more tax revenue as a entry-fee museum, preserved as the personal residence of a famous Supreme Court justice. Why should the state have to wait until any of these justices retires? Surely it is in the public interest for any of these locales to proceed with these public interest projects.
I think restricting "acts" that do not deprive anyone else of their life, liberty, or property does more harm to freedom and liberty than any "disrepectful" acts or speech could ever do.
Excellent letter. Too often, Conservatives support for the Constitution seems to consist mostly of exceptions: free speech (except for certain types not favored by Conservatives), free press (except for certain viewpoints), freedom of religion (except for some religions), freedom from search and seizure (except for some accusees), property rights (except for those carrying too much cash), etc. It's not such a large stet to have property rights (except for those whose property is substandard.)
Things aren't looking so good here, how's New Zealand?
My thoughts exactly.
You know, ANY developer can already HAVE my property, for the right price.
Now, the incentive will be just to grease the palms os some politicians and get the land on the cheap. (Anyone who thinks "just compensation" is ever paid is somewhat naive.)
I can't see how anyone who had any sense and knowledge of US history would think the Founding Fathers would have approved this.
I think the Supreme Court finally cooker their goose on this one. Now they have BOTH most liberals and most conservatives upset. Over the same decision.
My letter to you
Dear jerk
If you don't want to read this thread don't, but have some respect for the guy posting it. If you think the decision by the scotus is some kind of joke you are one sick puppy.
several misspellings - sorry
yes, spell check is available
I was expending all my energy to not run afoul of the "no obscenity" rule
this has me ticked off
I dont think he cares about the Supreme Court decision. He lives in New Zealand.
And what he thinks about my letter isn't going to affect me one way or another either.
IMHO the flag belongs to all of us. I look at our flag and I feel pride in the good that our country stands for. I think of all those who gave their lives in wars fighting for our freedom and the freedom of millions and millions of others around the world. And when I see pictures of our flag being burned my heart breaks inside just as it would if someone were to burn down my house.
You see, it's not just a piece of cloth to me, it's a symbol of all that is good in our country. And a few stupid people who wear black robes said it's ok for someone who hates our country and everything it stands for, to cause pain and suffering to the rest of us. And for the life of me I can not understand how an act, which is really in all reality a hate crime, can be called free speech.
Speech is done with a sound coming from one's mouth, or words written on paper, not an act. But yet those who wear black robes can't tell the difference words and acts born of hate. Which is what a hate crime is. An act born of hate.
If I were to set fire to the homes of those who would burn our flag and call it free speech, would they also consider my act as free speech? Of course not. If I were to burn a Koran and call it free speech, would they also consider my act as free speech? No, they would consider it a hate crime.
So why is it ok to bring me pain? Why is it ok to break my heart by burning my countries flag?
Restricting "acts" is what our legislature does. We "Restrict" the act of murder, of false witness, of stealing, and racial and religious persecution. It is the legislatures job to do this and the courts to enforce it.
In the past our legislatures banned the burning of the flag and it has been an activist court that overturned the will of all 50 states in this matter.
So what you are saying is that you don't like Americans and their will or their government. You fear what they may say. For once Americans take back their rights, those that have opposed their rights may have some explaining to do.
Did you miss the second part of my sentence? I'll repeat it. I think restricting "acts" that do not deprive anyone else of their life, liberty, or property does more harm to freedom and liberty than any "disrespectful" acts or speech could ever do.
Murder, bearing false witness, stealing, and racial and religious persecution, etc, all deprive someone of life, liberty, or property.
I find flag burning abhorrent, disgusting, and extremely disrespectful, but none of that should deprive some a$$h0le of expressing themselves in that manner. Freedom of speech protects even the speech we don't like. We do not have a right to NOT be offended.
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.