Against an Anti-Flag Burning Amendment I have to admit that I am somewhat taken aback at the notion that any of the Presidential candidates honestly believe that it would be appropriate to have a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. A glance at a table in the local paper the other day revealed that about half of the Democrats running for President support such an amendment. My wonderment at anyone seriously taking this position resides at several levels. First of all, there is the problem itself. How often does anybody burn an American flag in this country? Is this really a big problem? Is it of such great moment that it requires that the fundamental document on which our National Government rests, a document that has been amended but 27 times since its conception, only 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights be amended again to address it? How can anyone seriously argue that this is the case? Secondly, I take issue with the sanctification of the flag that this amendment would create. For many people, the flag is already a sacred relic. To those people, the flag apparently symbolizes something so powerful, so essential to how they feel about themselves and their country, that to deface the flag itself is to assault those things that they hold most dear, to assault they themselves. It is to attack the things the flag symbolizes for them, be that the United States itself, the Constitution, freedom, liberty, whatever. Because of the gravity involved in amending the Constitution, because of the seriousness of that act, I dearly hope that those Presidential candidates, indeed that all politicians and public figures who advocate such an amendment count themselves among such people. But I have to point out to these people that burning or trampling on or otherwise defacing the flag is only to burn or trample the flag. The flag is but a symbol. Burning an individual flag destroys that flag but it does nothing to weaken those things the flag represents, it does nothing to weaken the country, to lessen freedom or liberty, to assail the Constitution. On the contrary, I believe that an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit flag burning constitutes a greater assault on those things than the burning of one or a thousand flags ever could. As I mentioned, in over two hundred years, our constitution has been amended but 27 times. The vast majority of those amendments came about out of recognition that in the drafting the Constitution, either the Federal or State governments were given too much power and control over the life of its citizens. There are a handful of amendments that limit action citizens or states may take against the Federal Goverment or individual states. Most amendments, though, have aimed to limit the reach of government, to expand the freedom and liberty of its citizens. The most famous exception, the Eighteenth Amendment, establishing prohibition, was a spectacular and misguided failure, leading to its being repealed fourteen years later by the Twenty first Amendment. The implication of an amendment such as the proposed flag burning one, is that we the people have too much freedom, too much liberty, too much freedom of expression and that it must be curtailed. I beg all the candidates and all citizens to challenge this notion. And I beg them to consider the further implications. Would such an amendment be the only step, or only the first step down the path to restricting our rights to express ourselves politically. Will there be others?

Comments

Good work. Interesting posts, besides those spam...

Congratulations on a great web site. I am a new computer user and finding you was like coming home. Continued success.

Hello, there was some interesting site with nice design

Very nice site!

Very many thanks for a good work. Nice and useful. Like it!

urazk olnze nbdmr okfinxz otmdh ipdcsx nrefyws

Very many thanks for a good work. Nice and useful. Like it!

I would like to wish you much luck. And a lot of money. Thank you.

I would like to wish you much luck. And a lot of money. Thank you.

Hi! Nice site!

Hi! Nice site!

phcjumylg wfsck timyxn ldupjqf dbkwnsq koqn hdyncqaf

Hi! Nice site!

Hi! Nice site!

Hi! Nice site!

privet

Hi! Nice site!

Hi! Nice site!

I would like to wish you much luck. And a lot of money. Thank you.

Hi! Nice site!

Hi! Nice site!

Hi! Nice site!

Hi! Nice site!

Hi! Nice site!

Hi! Nice site!

meio vlsz udswjn zkrgx nhkxyrb qhugt wvor

segodny traur v strane,pomynem

Hi! Nice site!

Very many thanks for a good work. Nice and useful. Like it! Gutto Braigain.

Hi! Nice site!

ringtones free

e2vesc4q-1001141591

gdv6lzlm-603651734

lgxg7zo5-703448174

f84qpuvj-103997222

roplfwz2-103985322

ul8tgh8e-603558857

online directory main

zok8g6wn-103399937

google pr main

online directory main

Hilsen fra Klovnen "Tulliball"

hk915dzr-203325848

srxrx2a0-702684614

1wus4t1g-202945868

azAMN6ahdfMXtt KuJzGLTCzI WPJVtqkzNf

n7rppvnm-201275246

1) Proper retiring of a worn or soiled flag includes burning it, and then burying its ashes. 2) Passing an ammendment because foreigners on foreign soil are buring American flags will enhance our lack of virility and ineffectiveness. 3) Abridging free expression may not get past our Supreme Court. 4) What is the pressing problem that the ammedment will solve? Don't we have other issues?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha suck me stuip's

shut up you are dum you dont know how to spell. It not aback a bck spell it right or don't write at all. yuo dont know what you are saying you thing you do but you dont. It garbage what yo right and think

If anyone wants to send me links to websites that articulate the reasons why Clark, Gephart, and Kucinich support an amendment on banning flag-burning, I will be happy to post them here.

Unfortunately, your well stated arguments against this foolish idea go right over-the-heads of most Americans. I am loathe to put it this way, but the older I get the more I believe that most people are fundamentally stupid. Presented with any number of frivolous, foolish and dangerous ideas for constitutional ammendments, Americans in substantial numbers could be expeceted to express their support. The "flag burning" ammendment is just another hair-brained idea that the public ready to swallow. There are so many obvious problems with such an ammendment, one would hope that most politicians would reject it immediately. Yet we find a parade of block-heads aspiring to hold the highest public office in the world who are either pandering to the "stupid majority" or are themselves members of the stupid majority. What I find most insidious about this idea is that it really is a ban on thought and, by implication, speech. The only "proper" way to dispose of an American flag is by burning. So, if such an ammendment is passed, the determinant for whether flag burning is legal or illegal will be the thoughts of the flag burner. Suppose, for example, that during a political protest against a particular president or government policy one burns an American flag. What makes the flag burning illegal? Clearly, what would make such an act illegal would be the "political" speech accompanying flag burning or the presence of political protesters in proximity to the flag burner. In fact, then, this ammendment is a ban on free political speech and nothing more. The ammendment will not make flag burning illegal. It will only make the accompanying "speech" illegal.

Add Comment

Name (optional):

Email (optional):

Comment: