freecounterpoint: what's your take on this?

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

what's your take on this?

20 comments:

Tecumseh said...: I agree with the 66 Senators who voted for the Amendment -- just shy of the 67 needed to pass it, that was close! I hope it eventually passes -- since I think it's really wrong to let random assholes burn Old Glory to show off they hatred of America -- but it's not a burning issue for me. On the other hand, it amuses me when I see the pinko-lefties frothing at the mouth, and saying that banning desecration of the flag would mean Hitler is here (well, they say Bush is Hitler, anyhow, and America is the root of all evil in the world, etc, etc, what's the difference?) and the End is nigh. Those guys need some prozac.

For a slightly different take, see today's Taranto. He's against the Amendment (oh, well, the Right is not as monolithic as the lockstep, Manchurian Candidate-like Left), mainly on civil-libertarian grounds. But he keeps things in jaundiced perspective, and reserves his barbs for the apoplectic Lefties.; 6/27/2006 10:30 PM
The Darkroom said...: >>I think it's really wrong to let random assholes burn Old Glory to show off they hatred of America

more wrong, say than letting KKK types march in jewish neighborhoods ? That has been protected under 1st amendment rights (the ACLU made a strange bedfellow on this one).

More generaly, should really wrong speech be banned (and I don't mean fire in a theater here, obviously)?; 6/27/2006 10:55 PM
Tecumseh said...: The Skokie march is getting really dated, and irrelevant. At any rate, the issue here is whether burning the symbol of America is "speech". For the longest of times (till the Supremes decided to take a shot at it a few years ago), it was considered a crime, not afforded the protection of the First Amendment. I think the people back then (and 66/100 of Senators now) are correct, and those 5 out 9 Justices were wrong.

The debate is not totally clear-cut, I agree. That's why we have such a complicated Constitutional process -- it's extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, the case needs to be very strong. But this is the closest I've seen in memory, so I think it says something about the depth of feeling of Americans for their flag. I know, this sounds corny to almost all Euros, regardless of politics (they always snigger at the stoopid Ricains for their patriotism). Oh well, c'est la vie.; 6/27/2006 11:10 PM
Tecumseh said...: Those were the days:

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced a man to death for burning the U.S flag.; 6/27/2006 11:20 PM
The Darkroom said...: >>The Skokie march is getting really dated, and irrelevant

how is it irrelevant ?

>>since I think it's really wrong to let random assholes burn Old Glory to show off they hatred of America

aren't these random assholes showing hatred of jews ?; 6/28/2006 5:46 AM
The Darkroom said...: So why do you think that this issue should raise to the level of a consitutitonal amendment ?; 6/28/2006 5:50 AM
My Frontier Thesis said...: With respect to AI's position, we don't need another amendment. The flag is a symbol with idea affixed, and I think it more patriotic to let someone come to their own conclusion about that idea than to have another code on the books. Free Speech will exist regardless of whether or not a piece of cloth is Constitutionally protected.

Anyhow, with side-note, my favorite Revolutionary flag happens to be the "Don't Tread On Me." It's defiant while at the same time having that emancipatory and humanist flavor (or theme) that was partly central to the Eighteenth-century Enlightenment.; 6/28/2006 9:49 AM
Tecumseh said...: Read the proposed Amendment: it doesn't say that flag burning is or is not protected by the First Amendment. All it says is that the matter of to deal with miscreants doing such dastardy acts should be decided by laws passed by Congress. Are you saying Congress should not have the power to pass laws regulating such acts?; 6/28/2006 10:38 AM
My Frontier Thesis said...: Congress can pass laws, but I wasn't implying that every law they pass, or are attempting to pass, benefits the country (look at the tax code that stands some 6-to-9 feet tall).

Call me a bit of an idealist, but I think the people can handle their own flags instead of Washington D.C. telling us what we individually should and should not do with cloth.; 6/28/2006 12:49 PM
Tecumseh said...: OK, let's forget for the moment the emotional issue of the flag -- emotions can lead to bad laws, after all. The issue I was trying to emphasize is that this is -- inetr-alia -- a donnybrook between the Supreme Court and Congress. Who has the power to pass laws under the Constitution? Congress, of course. In this case, the Supremes took their power away in this particular area, by discovering yet another "right" hidden in the "penumbras of the Constitution" -- that of desecrating the national symbol with impunity. What's wrong if Congress wants to reassert its prerogatives? if the Supremes don't like it, they can always strike down a law that Congress passes, and then the cycle begins anew. The circle of life...; 6/28/2006 1:36 PM
The Darkroom said...: >>Are you saying Congress should not have the power to pass laws regulating such acts?

I am not sure Congress should have the power to restrict speech.; 6/28/2006 2:21 PM
Tecumseh said...: Define speech. A vast majority of the House, and a 66% majority of the Senate (just shy of the required 66.67%) thinks puking on Old Glory is not speech--rather, just that: puking Got a problem with that?; 6/28/2006 6:53 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: In the vein of Mencken, I too wonder about the intelligence of our Congress-men and -women and their ability (or inability) to properly interpret the Constitution.

A flag burning ban hurts patriotism and Freedom of Choice in a similar way that the gratuitous posting of the 10 Commandments often does more harm than good to the Christian cause. I'm staying Libertarian on this one ai.; 6/28/2006 9:08 PM
The Darkroom said...: do you prefer the term "freedom of expression" to
"freedom of speech" ?

puking on "old glory" is fine with me: it's a false problem - hardly ever happens.

It does raise some interesting enforceability issues though:

If I make a US flag with say 49 stars, could i legally shit on it ? If not, should everything remotely ressembling a us flag also be protected ?

If i buy a pack of matches with the flag on the box, put it in my rear pocket, and sit on it, am I desecrating the flag ?

If I buy my own flag, under the seemingly god given right to do anything i want with my property, would i be breaking the law if i decided to burn the flag in the privacy of my own home ? if so, what about the sanctity of what i do with my hard-earned american dollars ?

Is everything spinning so perfectly well on planet america that congress can actually afford to devote time to this non-issue ? This reminds me of the time when congress had to vote, on the eve of the iraqi adventure, on rebaptizing lardy belgium potatoes freedom fries. It would have been truly great if they extyended this to the nauseating "french" dressing, equally foreign to our culinary art.; 6/28/2006 9:17 PM
Tecumseh said...: Oh, the infinite wisdom of the French! But then, how come they do have a law on the books prohibiting the desecration of the tricolore, as this guy (who by the way opposes the Amendment, but still has the intellectual honesty to look at all sides of the argument) points out:

But it turns out that France, Germany, Italy, and India, all of which are reasonably free countries, also have laws against insulting their national ensigns. (Japan, Norway, and—cartoons notwithstanding—polite little Denmark forbid the burning of foreign flags but not their own.) The flag-desecration amendment would hardly mean the death of free expression in America.; 6/28/2006 10:00 PM
Tecumseh said...: As for French dressing, I agree, it's an abomination. I decided that without ever tasting it -- it looks ersatz, that's for sure. I only try now and then blue cheese dressing, if I feel the urge -- it can be more-or-less OK, sometimes.; 6/28/2006 10:04 PM
The Darkroom said...: ai - you argue as if i had to condone all things french. I dodn't know about anti-tricolore desecration laws and i assure you they sound to me as silly as their stars & stripes equivalent.

But you didn't address the practical issues I was wondering about.; 6/28/2006 10:20 PM
The Darkroom said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 6/28/2006 10:22 PM
The Darkroom said...: You did not state either why you believed this issue was worthy of no less than a constitutional amendment, except to say that it is "really wrong to let random assholes burn Old Glory ".

I believe that it is really wrong for my neighbors to let their dog poop on my lawn - the kids get it all over their shoes, and bring it in the house. And although I am tempted to use my Sig P220 on the little fecal factories, it is clear to me that this issue does not call for a constitutional overhaul.

Can you make an argument as to why there is a need to modify the constitution for this purpose ?; 6/28/2006 10:30 PM
Tecumseh said...: Why should the burden be on me to make the case for why an Amendment to protect the flag should be brought up? This has been debated for more than 15 years, the Amendment has been drafted and approved by >67% of the House of Represengtatives, and 66% of the Senate. These numbers speak more loudly than anything I could say. I didn't bring this up, and it's not one of my top 10 priorities, as I said, but if you ask me, I'm for it, just because. If nothing else, because I think it's one of those issues that should be decided by the Legislature, not by the Supreme Court. As you guys say, it's not a Constitutional issue -- so why should the Supreme Court decide it? Let the Congress pass a statute, and be done with it. What's the big deal?; 6/29/2006 12:02 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)