Allen to Vote to Protect Flag Amendment

Voter's Domain ^ | June 26, 2006

[BigSkyFreeper]

And, (prepare to be horrified) I couldn't possibly care less if somebody somewhere burns a American flag they've purchased and that they own, in an area where public burning isn't prohibited, or on their own property. I'd prefer that they didn't - that's why I'm against the amendment, because nothing will do more to cause flag burnings in this country than it being prohibited.

Then your against the amendment for a whole host of weak reasons including that bogus argument foisted by the left that it's a "free speech" issue.

I was for the amendment because it legitimately would have turned the issue over to the states and each state would have decided whether flag burning was right or wrong.

This amendment had nothing to do with free speech rights.

The Supreme Court in 1989 unconstitutionally denied states the right to decide for themselves and made it a federal issue. This amendment sought to put this issue back on it's proper course.

This is a states rights issue. Much like the abortion issue, and the gay marriage issue.

Whether the flag burning was legal or not, your right to free speech would not have been tampered or done away with.

If someone is burning a flag, then they don't belong here.

But, if you want to make this a free speech issue, in my opinion flag burning is hate speech, and hate speech is not protected speech.

[MACVSOG68]

Yeah, how dare we deny them the right to their "free speech". Gosh darn it, next thing you know we'll be outlawing the "right" of people to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Freedom of speech, ya know.

Freedom of speech that threatens or harms others has always been regulated. Straw men work sometimes, but not this time.

[tee-sixtytwo]

---The Supreme Court in 1989 unconstitutionally denied states the right to decide for themselves and made it a federal issue. This amendment sought to put this issue back on it\'s proper course.

This is a states rights issue. Much like the abortion issue, and the gay marriage issue.----


Precisely. Whether or not I think flag-burning is political speech, I supported the amendment because it takes an issue away from 9 unelected blackrobed mullahs and gives it back to representatives of the people. But that leads to a bigger point. We conservatives sometimes do not see the forest for the trees. Such is the case here. The forest--or elephant in the living room--that is being ignored is the entire concept of JUDICIAL REVIEW. The US Constitution does not authorize judicial review. Such an authority is nowhere to be found in its text. Marbury v. Madison (1803) is the first time judicial review was invoked by the SCOTUS, and it basically was a constitutional coup d etat by CJ John Marshall. Why Pres. Jefferson did not call Marshalls bluff I will never understand. The Framers would have detested judicial review. It takes power away from the general will of the American people (infallible) and gives it to nine all-to-fallible unelected oligarchs. Judicial review has caused injustice (Plessy, Korematsu, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kelo) and even war (Dred Scott). Judicial review is a concept which does our conservative movement no good. Our movement is about the PEOPLE and their sovereignty; judicial review only takes that away. There is a great article calling for the abolition of judicial review on townhall.com by a brilliant young political scientist named Ben Shapiro. To put it bluntly, instead of b*tching about this SCOTUS decision or that, or praying that the right justice gets on the bench, we conservatives should push to reverse Marshalls constitutional coup and abolish this odious doctrine once and for all. Let people elected by the people, who swear to uphold the Constitution, decide what is constitutional.

[Lumper20]

Have a flag on my front porch. Try to burn it. Apparently, so few have ever served in combat and few know what our flag really means. I wonder about the courses in schools these days.

[Gopher Broke]

George Allen's opponent, "born mad" Jim Webb said he opposed the flag burning ban....

[Lumper20]

Is this the same man with a Navy Cross? If so, he has lost his mind. Marines do not burn the US flag nor would they sit by and allow anyone to burn our flag.

[bigdcaldavis]

Imprisoning dissenters is not patriotic.

Exactly. Imprisoning dissenters is fascist. Protecting freedom is more important than protecting the flag. Now publicly urinating and publicly defecating on the flag is already illegal (crime against nature), so I have no problem with arresting people who publicly p*ss/sh*t on the flag.

[bigdcaldavis]

But what if the person burning the flag actually owned that flag? Would you still lock them up?

[bigdcaldavis]

If you ratify a flag amendment, it would lead to a slippery slope where indeed burning the UN flag would be considered illegal anti-globalist hate speech.

[Lumper20]

Your analogy is amazing. I see no connection between the flag of the USA and what it means to those,who have fought for it and others who hold it dear as oppoded the UN flag. We are all Americans first. We are not under any world government.

[bigdcaldavis]

Sure. Go ahead and believe we don't have a corrupt government. I'm sick and tired of arguing with sheep.