[IP] more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning
Begin forwarded message:
From: Steven Champeon <schampeo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 28, 2006 6:48:24 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: NMunro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning
on Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 05:31:06PM -0400, David Farber quoted:
From: "Munro, Neil" <NMunro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 28, 2006 4:55:53 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning
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
should
be limited for the good of the collective?
No, my personal dislike of the flag-burning amendment is powered by the
fact that - like the federal attempt to discriminate against
homosexuals, the ongoing federal effort to restrict a woman's
reproductive rights to those any random doctor thinks are appropriate,
etc. - it's way out of whack with respect to proportion, and doesn't
have anything to do with what the Constitution is supposed to /do/.
Look at the Constitution. It purports to:
- form a more perfect Union
- establish Justice
- insure domestic Tranquility
- provide for the common defence
- promote the general Welfare
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
How does banning one form of freedom of expression over others help
with any of these? How does preventing gay couples from protecting
their property from the State and securing it for their heirs help
with any of these? How does forcing rape victims to bear children of
their attackers help accomplish any of these?
Look at most of the amendments. They:
- guarantee freedom of religion
- guarantee a militia apart from the state itself
- limit the ability of the state to use private homes for its military
- provide bounds to the powers of the state WRT search/seizure
- protect private property from abuse
- guarantee a quick trial and no double jeopardy, reasonable bail,
etc.
- limit the powers of the state and protects the powers of the States
- protect us from foreign lawsuits
- clarify the election process (giving more rights to the people)
- abolish slavery (and clarify who will pay for it)
- clarify citizenship in the US vs that of the States
- protect former slaves from discrimination
- allow an income tax
- attempt, and admit failure at, legislating away alcoholism
- empower women to vote
- fix the terms and certain duties of the president et al
- clarify succession
- give 18 year olds the vote
- limit the ability of representatives to vote themselves a raise
Excepting Prohibition (later repented of), *none* of these deal
with any non-administrative matters except those that explicitly *grant*
new rights or clarify existing rights. To the PEOPLE. With respect to
the government, they limit power or clarify it.
How is it again that any subsequent amendment could do otherwise and
still remain in the original spirit of the document over more than two
hundred years? How could something so important as the abolition of
slavery, women's suffrage, teenage soldiers being able to vote, freedom
of religion, etc. possibly be compared with explicitly outlawing an act
of defiance against a symbol that can already be found on cigarette
lighters and coffe mugs, mousepads, frisbees, coolers and bumper
stickers? And, of course, on stupid car window attachments, flying in
the rain.
Is the dislike of the amendment powered by fear than any victory by
the collective-faction will lead to more victories by that faction and
thus result in practical, tangible limits on our freedom of
expression?
No, it's because it's ridiculously out of proportion and not in line
with what the Constitution represents. And because it's such a hollow
and pointless measure that they're wasting time on when they could be
dealing with real issues, like New Orleans or Network Neutrality or
carbon emissions or fixing Iraq or figuring out whether when we vote in
the US we can trust the outcome or ... . Pick your favorite issue (or
non-issue, as per your particular politics) - do you /really/ think it's
less important than an amendment against /flag burning/?
Is the dislike of the amendment powered by a desire not to grant even
a symbolic victory to another sector in society, in this case, to the
socially conservative Republican voters?
No, it's powered by the knowledge that most of the folks who say we
can't burn the flag are the same ignorant idiots who fly it in the dark,
or in the rain, or let it touch the ground, or use it as an advertising
gimmick or other purpose (such as by flying it next to, and at the same
level or below, a church flag), stick it on their cars, or who don't
know that the only sanctioned method by which a flag may be destroyed
once it is too worn to serve its purpose as a symbol is to BURN IT.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sup_01_4_10_1.html
We could have endowed colleges with the $100 fines we could have gone
around levying against every person who stuck an American flag on their
car post-9/11. Instead, we all watched as some folks drove around with
cheaply made, plastic, tattered, ripped, split, faded, utterly neglected
and abused symbols that they now want us not to be able to burn.
That many of those ignorant idiots happen to be part of the
aforementioned sector of society isn't really my concern. That so many
of already them seem ignorant of the basics of protecting the flag as a
symbol doesn't fill me with much hope that a freaking /amendment/ to the
/CONSTITUTION/ will make any difference. They don't observe the laws
that already exist governing the proper care and display of the flag
anyway. Why should this make any difference?
Steve,
wondering if more of them had actually served in the armed forces,
like my grandfather did, would have made any difference in what they
know about the proper care and handling and disposal of the flag.
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2553 w: http://
hesketh.com/
antispam news, solutions for sendmail, exim, postfix: http://
enemieslist.com/
rambling, amusements, edifications and suchlike: http://interrupt-
driven.com/
-------------------------------------
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/