Flag Protection Amendment

[Blue Rectangle]

No and no.

I'm fairly ambivalent about the amendment.  I don't believe burning a flag is political speech, but I also not interested in banning the practice.

Strictly politically speaking, the Republicans can score some very minor points by supporting this over Democratic opposition.  It's doubtful that any Democrat facing a tough race in 06 will risk opposing this, but you never know.

[Blue Rectangle]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

--Nelson Muntz

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blue Rectangle]

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 ...

[Blue Rectangle]

migrendel and others,
The protection of free speech was not intended to allow people to offend each other, it was intended to protect legitimate political speech.  Free speech has several reasonable limits that cause little or no danger to our political freedoms: controls on obscenity, harassment, profanity, slander, false and misleading statements, speech that incites violence, etc.  The burning of the flag fits into one or more of those categories, but I still don't see what political message it communicates that is worth protecting or that couldn't be stated in just a few words (which would probably be protected speech).

[Blue Rectangle]

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.

But that's exactly the way it works now.  The courts decide what is protected and not protected on free speech issues.  If you think that the people, not the courts, should decide...well, that's what this amendment does (it's just that a super-majority disagrees with you).

[Blue Rectangle]

Who the hell is Nelson Muntz?

Ha Ha!  migrendel doesn't know who Nelson Muntz is!