Begin forwarded message: From: DV Henkel-Wallace <gumby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: June 28, 2006 6:21:44 PM EDT To: NMunro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [IP] more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag BurningYour point about the constitutionality is great. I have always found that amusing too.
Nevertheless there are several legitimate, conservative reasons to oppose such an amendment and I would think they would have been discussed to death. Here are a couple:
1 - "Freedom of expression" is not just a slogan, it's a crucial part of the identity of the country and its something that people have bent over backwards to support (e.g. allowing Nazis to march). The roots of that philosophy as part of the national identity are over two centuries old and stem from revolutionary history as a reaction to British colonial history. Government restrictions on that speech generally have fallen into two groups: physical danger (e.g. the famous "fire in a crowded theatre" decision) and what turn out ultimately to be temporary restrictions (e.g. the Alien and Sedition act). Revoking a constitutional amendment is a lot hairier than revoking a law.
In addition, I have found that the kind of societies that elevate banners tend not to be the kind of countries that care about human rights -- rather the opposite (you can pick your own favorite -- it has always been a consistent element of communist societies , but the attitude goes back to the imperial roman armies). While I think it would be overwrought to say that such an amendment makes this country a facist dictatorship, it certainly isn't consistent with a country of freedom.
So sure it would by definition be constitutional to add such a restriction, but it would be inconsistent with 230 years of national identity. Which leads to
2 - Amending the constitution on emotional grounds has already caused enough problems (as we all know from the 18th and 21st amendments). This is why the States sensibly failed to ratify the ERA, despite its admirable objective. But in a time of polarized politics will people make a decision that they will later regret?
As I noted, both of these are all solidly conservative arguments -- there are plenty of others. On the other hand, "good of the collective" is not a term I've commonly heard coming from my conservative colleagues. And _is_ it really good for the community? Should people worship and respect their country (even in opposition) or worship easily manipulatable symbols?
-dPS: if you're a veteran I'm sure you already know that the respectful way to dispose of a flag is, well, to burn it!
From: "Munro, Neil" <NMunro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: June 28, 2006 4:55:53 PM EDT Just a few minor questions; Given that complaints about the constitutionality of a properly accomplished constitutional amendment are logically ridiculous (Here's the short version; The constitution specifically allows the Senate to forward amendments to the states), then I'd like to ask;Is the dislike of a flag-burning amendment powered by opposition to the amendment's moral claim - that our personal freedom of expression shouldbe limited for the good of the collective?
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/