more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tilghman Lesher <tilghman () mail jeffandtilghman com>
Date: June 28, 2006 6:17:48 PM EDT
To: NMunro () nationaljournal com
Cc: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning

On Wednesday 28 June 2006 16:31, David Farber wrote:
> perhaps to the Bill of Rights and our freedom
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Munro, Neil" <NMunro () nationaljournal com>
> Date: June 28, 2006 4:55:53 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: RE: [IP] more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning
>
>
>
> Just a few minor questions;
>
> 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, the objection to it is that the amendment is in itself an end-run
around a ruling by the Supreme Court, which declared a law banning
flag burning passed by the US Congress to be a violation of the First
Amendment.  We don't alter the Constitution lightly -- we do it to
guarantee freedoms that our forefathers had not foreseen to protect
or to prevent abuses by those in power.  We had previously amended
the Constitution for another purpose altogether.  That resulted in
Prohibition, which, I think we can all agree, was not a resounding
success, considering it had to be repealed a few years later.

Protecting the flag from being burnt does not guarantee any freedoms;
in fact, the opposite is true:  it prohibits a freedom.  While that
freedom may be repugnant to some, we hold the ideal that we protect
speech, precisely because some (in power) may find that speech
distasteful.  This is what the Supreme Court expressed in its
overturning of the flag burning law, and that ideal is enshrined in our
First Amendment.

In short, we protect the action of flag burning because the ideals for
which the Constitution attempts to aspire conflict with the prohibition
thereof.  You're correct that a constitutional amendment, by definition,
does not conflict with the Constitution, but it can (and does) conflict
with the ideals the framers intended to protect.

--
Tilghman


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/