Is This Amendment Necessary? (James J. Kilpatrick on the flag burning amendment)

uexpress.com ^ | 8/10/05 | James J. Kilpatrick

[blitzgig]

"When it is not necessary to change," said Lord Falkland, "it is necessary not to change." His lordship was propounding that sound advice in 1641. Today, as Congress looks toward approval of a remarkably dumb constitutional amendment, his maxim provides a useful guide. The pending Flag Amendment may not be a constitutional disaster. It would surely amount to an unnecessary change.

This is the proposal approved in the House by a vote of 286-130 on June 22:

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

A sensible Senate will bury this crowd-pleaser in committee. Regrettably, if the resolution reaches the floor, at least 66 senators probably can be rounded up to vote for it. If three-fourths of the states vote to ratify, our Constitution will have acquired Amendment XXVIII. It will then be up to Congress to write into statutory law the meaning of "physical desecration" and "the flag of the United States." It's not going to be an easy job.

[Kurt_D]

OK, burning a flag is highly retarded.... but making it illegal? Good grief! Don't we have enough laws already?

[Paradox]

This is one of those stupid things thing many Republicans go for, it is difficult to tell these folks just how stupid the idea is, for they usually choose to FEEL their way through this issue, instead of thinking..

It is on my list of Stupid Conservative Tricks.

[SkyDancer]

Obviously not ... but then again, laws are just for those who obey them ....

[Servant of the 9]

Teh "Fighting Words Doctrine" is enough to deal with flag burning.

That means by burning the flag a liberal becomes the instigator of the fight in which you beat the shit out of him.

So9

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

This amendment is not needed, not viable, and contrary to the Constitution.

Not needed: the flag does not protecting by law. People who abuse this symbol should be subject to public shaming.

Not viable: just as "gun control" laws do not produce gun control (which is defined as "hitting what you aim at"), this law will not keep morons from treating the flag with disrespect. It may well encourage it as a demonstration of their alignment with the Democratic Party.

Contrary to the Constitution: The 4th and 5th Amendments denote my right to own property and pretty much do with it as I please. If I want to desecrate a flag I own, I am fully vested by the Constitution to do so. Note, burning flags IS NOT a 1st Amendment right - it ain't speech and that Amendment does not protect "expression".

Unnecessary laws and unenforced laws only breed contempt for the law. We have enough of that already.

[Hexenhammer]

just make it legal for a person to assault a flag burner and let everything take care of itself.

[boomop1]

No, flag burning occurs each day our borders are not secured.

[flashbunny]

A flag burning amendment is simply a distraction. It takes a highly emotional yet ultimately inconsequentional issue and puts it in the spot light. This enables the politicians involved to say they're "doing something" while rome burns. No border security, skyrocketing government budgets, massive taxes - who cares about them when we can make you angry about flag burning????

[glaseatr]

For every action there is a reaction.

Burn my flag...Get teeth knocked out.

Ya I'll pay the fine and spend time for that.

[Carry_Okie]

Dumb idea.

[D Rider]

OK, burning a flag is highly retarded.... but making it illegal? Good grief! Don't we have enough laws already?

I agree, I just want my first amendment rights expanded to include taking a baseball bat to someone burning the flag. I would be perfectly happy with that minor change.

[Doe Eyes]

Could you burn a flag that looks like the United States flag, but is slightly different (49 stars, 12 stripes)?

Don't you think thats what the protesters would do if burning the flag is made illegal?

[Alberta's Child]

"Flag-Burning Amendment" and "Steroids in Baseball" are in a tight competition for the Biggest Waste of F#%&ing Time in Washington Award right now.

[Codeflier]

Agreed!

[Codeflier]

Agreed!

[RightWhale]

Is this thing still around?

[ndt]

I have to admit I'm a bit (presently) surprised by the agreement in the room so far. My libertarian leaning usually leave me shaking my head in regard to topics like this.

[ndt]

pleasantly, not "presently"

[Question_Assumptions]

Actually, I think this amendment serves a more important purpose than protecting the flag. It puts the courts on warning that if they go too far out of step with the American people that it will encourage the passage of Constitutional Amendments to overturn their decisions.