One Senator Short on Flag Burning Amendment

The Supreme Court, in 1989, decided that flag-burning is protected by the First Amendment. They declared in their decision it is a free speech issue. This took the issue out of the hands of states (and citizens of said states) and made it a federal issue that could only be trumped with a constitutional amendment. States were left with using local laws about starting a fire without a permit or anti-mischief laws to prosecute flag burning.

Yesterday (27Jun06)the senate voted 66-to-34 which was one vote short of the 67 required to send it to the states for potential ratification as the 28th Amendment.

Those who voted against it do not trust the people of the United States to make the decision they (the senators) wanted. "Protecting the peoples free speech", they say. On the other hand they did not protect the peoples right to make decisions as a nation of states. They worked against that...

Concerning Flag Burning and free speech I say the following:

prying1 sez:

I keep hearing flag burning is a free speech issue.

How many words must be spoken, expressed or written to burn a flag?

ans: None.

When bystanders see the flag burned what exactly does it tell them? Doesn't speech convey specific information, thoughts and ideas? What specific speech is conveyed through a piece of cloth burning?

ans: Nothing, Yes, None.

It has nothing to do with "speech". It is an "action" we are really talking about not speech. I consider it to be speech when a soapbox is dragged out, someone climbs upon it and starts speaking. Even if they have a disability and must use posters and sign language. Ideas are put forth.

As a form of protest flag burning is below the bottom rung of telling people what you believe. That is because it is not speech and says nothing specific.

Had this passed it would have gone to the states to ratify it. The states would then let it's citizens decide on a state by state basis. When enough states said yes or no then it would go forward or stop.

So why didn't the powers that be allow the people to decide? There is where our free speech is being suppressed.

~~~~~~~~~~

Technorati Tags -
Flag Burning -
Politics -
Opinion -

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

My opinion:

Burning the flag should be a free form of expression for those who want to protest our country. Me calling the flag burner a scum sucking seditious weasel is an equally protected form of expression, and if the flag burning loser throws one punch in retaliation, cart his butt out to the lockup. He can't protest his first amendment rights while denying me mine.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So why didn't the powers that be allow the people to decide? There is where our free speech is being suppressed.

Interesting argument. But the founders had a method to their madness of protecting the constitution. There is nothing preventing an amendment from being created by the states and sending it to congress, so I dont think that argument holds water.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Gideon - May I suggest that I stand behind the jerk and egg him on. As he throws the punch I (hopefully) can catch his arm, break it in your defense and he can contemplate his actions on the way to the hospital.

Dr Guy - "There is nothing preventing an amendment from being created by the states and sending it to congress"? - Congress or a constitutional convention proposes amendments. - Perfectly legal and my arguement holds lots of fresh pure water. Not the stinky putrid kind the dems spew....

Here it is from Wikipedia: Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Such amendments may be proposed by the United States Congress or by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become valid, amendments must then be ratified by either the legislatures of or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the several states. Link

In the meantime I still do not think "actions" should be protected as "free speech".

Successfully updated karma reason!