Flag Protection Amendment

[Emsworth]

Another thread on this topic is here.

1. Definitely not
2. Yes

[Emsworth]

No - let's only amend the Constitution of the United States of America when it is actually important. Perhaps a balanced budget amendment outlawing deficit spending except in case of a congressionally declared war.

It is interesting that you bring up that point. Congressman Gene Taylor introduced a motion to include a balanced budget provision in the flag amendment. Unfortunately, the Republicans voted it down ...

[Emsworth]

And remember folks, there was no state/governmental involvement in either of the cases NewFeddy and I mentioned. Just actions of the citizenry, not governmental oppression.

It's a miscarriage of justice, nonetheless.

[Emsworth]

The protection of free speech was not intended to allow people to offend each other, it was intended to protect legitimate political speech ... I still don't see what political message it communicates that is worth protecting

I intend no disrespect, but I do not feel that the government should be allowed to decide what is "worth protecting" and what is not.

[Emsworth]

My main problem with this is not that it's a violation of free expression (it is, but a very minor one), but that it's a complete waste of an amendment.

Let's get a line-item veto, a balanced budget, and no presidential term limits.

None of that will ever get passed.

The balanced budget amendment fell one vote short in the Senate a few years ago, I believe.

[Emsworth]

Which Congress was that?

The 104th Congress.

[Emsworth]

The Supreme Court has long held that speech does not encompass just words, but also symbolic actions. There was a string of precedents upholding this view well before Texas v. Johnson. In Stromberg v. California, the Supreme Court upheld the right to fly a red (presumably pro-Communist) flag. Tinker v. Des Moines was a ruling that upheld the right to wear armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

Spence v. Washington, decided in 1974, was another flag desecration case; the Court invalidated the state of Washington's requirement that the flag be treated respectfully. The Court held that actions may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments." I see this as a perfectly valid interpretation, and note that the "strict constructionist" Antonin Scalia concurred in this view when Johnson was decided.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Dole was the Majority Leader, his vote was most likely procedural. (I believe that he was actually an avid supporter of the amendment.) By voting on the "winning" side, he would have got an opportunity to present a motion to reconsider at a later stage, perhaps after convincing another Senator to change his vote.

[Emsworth]

The amendment passed the House today, as expected, by a vote of 286-130. Prominent Republicans who voted against passage include David Dreier, Jeff Flake, Wayne Gilchrest, Jim Kolbe, and Ron Paul.

[Emsworth]

I'd much rather prefer a revival of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) over some silly constitutional amendment to stop treasonous acts by those who hate America.

Actually, it was the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA). The extreme left manged to get the media to call it the House Un-American Activities Committee to imply that it (the committee) was engaging in Un-American activities.

That form of nomenclature is not that unusual. We usually speak of the "Ways and Means Committee," the "Appropriations Committee," and the "Judiciary Committee." Rarely do we hear the official formal versions: "Committee on Ways and Means," "Committee on Appropriations," "Committee on the Judiciary."

[Emsworth]

If there's a better man in the Republican Party than Ron Paul, I've yet to hear of him.

I think that Paul is one of the most principled members of Congress. He seems to have put principle ahead of politics in some of his more courageous votes, like the vote against giving the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks on the grounds that minting the medal would be too expensive.

[Emsworth]

Well, actually a series of state state statutes. I'm sure he understands that the amendment was not found unconstitutional.

All but one state had laws against desecrating the flag before the ruling in 1989.  And the ruling came about due to a criminal charged with vandalism as well as flag desecration.  It was a bad ruling by the Court, and the Court should reverse their decision before the amendment goes through.  Of course, the Court won't, so the only other option is the amendment.

The ruling is perfectly in harmony with precedent - Tinker v. Des Moines, Spence v. Washington, Stromberg v. California, etc. It does not matter that a lot of states had laws to the contrary; the ruling was correct.