Interesting People mailing list archives
more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:19:59 -0400
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 That resulted in Prohibition, which, I think we can all agree, was not a resounding success, considering it had to be repealed a few years later.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/
Current thread:
- more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning David Farber (Jun 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning David Farber (Jun 28)
- more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning David Farber (Jun 28)
- more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning David Farber (Jun 28)
- more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning David Farber (Jun 28)
- more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning David Farber (Jun 29)
- more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning David Farber (Jun 29)