Posted on 06/22/2006 9:34:21 AM PDT by IrishMike
If anyone needs further proof - not that anyone does these days - that the Republican leadership in Congress is both desperate and clueless, it's the election-year revival of that mother of all non-issues: flag desecration.
The U.S. House passed this tread-worn measure last year, and the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it last week. Even though Congress has no shortage of real issues, ranging from the war in Iraq to global warming, clamoring for its attention, the full Senate will begin debate next week on a proposed constitutional amendment to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
As if that weren't dismaying enough, here's worse news: Even though the proposal has repeatedly been defeated in the past, supporters are within just a vote or two of passing this great flapping albatross of an amendment. If that happens, it would go to the states for ratification, and it's unnerving to remember that legislatures in all 50 have adopted resolutions in support.
So, once more we rise wearily to point out the obvious - a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to criminally punish the "physical desecration" of the American flag isn't needed because no one is out there burning flags. Even if they were, the First Amendment states with unmistakable clarity that Congress shall "make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." That applies to everything from Ku Klux Klan marchers to federal lawmakers who wear stars-and-stripes neckties.
(Excerpt) Read more at registerguard.com ...
Only on Free Republic is it considered bad form to play to your strengths in politics. At least if you're a conservative.
The flag burning issue is a loser for the Left. It has nothing to do with you or the party. It has nothing to do with the politically expedient move of passing legislation. It is being used to illustrate what "chumps" the wonderful liberals are.
Not sure the Vopos cared all that much about school anyway.
However, an argument from the "social contract" implicit in any nation-state is certainly far different than your analysis of the GDR position.
Besides, once I got a couple of other supposed Freepers to argue that there was no "social contract" and they owed nothing to no one at any time on any account, I knew I had surfaced some more of the Libertarian/Libertine crowd who have no place else to post outside of Bartcop.
Way back in the days when we were still unmistakeably proto-chimps, they'd dropped you out of the trees so fast you wouldn't believe it.
"Hey, Lugsoul", they'd say "say hello to the tigers for us, eh".
The East Germans also had a law aginst "desecration" of the flag of the DDR. And only a "psychosociopath" would claim to own a copyright on the US flag and personally own every US flag in America. You have much more in common with them than you might want to admit.
Probably long past time for you to check and see if your visa is still valid, whdda'ya say, eh?!
Yeah, the so called stupid party is at it again!
Puleeeeeeeeze dude get hold of your dumbassed self the flag burning issue is money in the bank for the GOP and a kick in the stomach for the rat, every time. It's called a poison pill bill you moron.
Thanks for proving my point. You have no argument left and are now down to attacking people personally.
Give me a break. Anyone who's had the slightest experience in reading the founding documents of this nation, or taking a good look at John Locke, etc., would know EXACTLY what I was saying.
The least I can expect of anyone on a "flag thread" is that they have read such materials and have a high level of reading comprehension in the language in which they were written, or, if not, in a language with which they are familiar.
The German Jeffersonian revolutionaries in the 1840s took the time to read and study the documents, examine the history, and come to the conclusion that the American Way, flags and all, was the correct way.
For their pains they were kicked out of their country. Fortunately they ended up in America.
No, not at all. I compared your argument and thought process to that of the East Germans who thought the same way.
Anyone who's had the slightest experience in reading the founding documents of this nation, or taking a good look at John Locke, etc., would know EXACTLY what I was saying.
What? That collectivism trumps liberty and freedom? That's in the founding documents of Communism as written by Marx, Lenin, and Mao -- not any of the American founding documents. The American founding fathers valued freedom. They never held any of the symbols of state as "sacred" -- but the Stalinists and Maoists sure did.
Time to get over it. Pot's not ever gonna' be free; sex is not really "free" ~ you'all get to pay and pay and pay anyway it's delivered (something adults know); George Soros is not a font of wisdom ~ just money he stole from the Koreans and Thais;, etc., etc., dream on kid. The world is much more rugged than you imagine ~ you need the neighbors' help to keep out the really bad guys.
"Socialism is my religion." -- Lenin
Look, your unwillingness to be willing to protect the flag is pretty clear.
It is not a flag Communists care to protect you know.
Because that is what you have been advocating -- some sort of collective ownership of individual flags in America. That is Communism -- where private property doesn't exist and we all own everything collectively.
Look, your unwillingness to be willing to protect the flag is pretty clear.
No, I'm unwilling to amend the Constitution -- the greatest expression of freedom and the most ideal form of government that has ever existed -- to change it. If you don't like the way the Supreme Court has ruled, then change the composition of the members there. We are well along our way in doing that. Or you can enforce the "fighting words" aspect of burning a flag -- that is don't prosecute anyone who responds to a flag burning by kicking the little snots flag-burning a$$. But amending the constitution is entirely the wrong thing to do.
Has any amendment to the Constitution ever not been distorted far beyond its original intent? What's to prevent a future Supreme Court from interpreting the amendment to mean the flag as a metaphor for any symbol of the state and to make desecrating a photo of a Senator like Hillary Clinton in her role as a representative of the state a crime as well? That's what they did when they changed "Congress shall make no law ..." into "No government entity, at any level of governance down to the local school board level, shall make a law ...."
Think of it more like a permanent copyright "on lone" to the United States of America to protect.
Once again, muawiyah has the last word.
And it's probably copyrighted, "on lone" to all of us having the honor to share a piece of his wisdom on FR.
.
Just wait til we start hearing about the new "Global Warming Superfund".
Well said. This nation was founded on sacred ideals, and it seems that it has forgotten them.
Never mind that under US law, copyrights expire and enter the public domain eventually. Which under a strict definition would mean that no one could "own" it upon expiration...
I always thought the 2nd Amendment was written for the express purpose of allowing citizens to destroy the state. The Founding Fathers certainly gave that impression in their writings.
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.