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 18:54:12 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Steven Champeon <schampeo () hesketh com> Date: June 28, 2006 6:48:24 PM EDT To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: NMunro () nationaljournal com 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 () 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; 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 shouldbe 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 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)