First up is a great editorial by the Springfield News-Leader about our eroding personal/private rights and how the Press is being made out to be the bad guy in all of this instead of those who invade our privacy in the name of "safety". Read it here!
And then in the same edition there is this person who, and this is their right, believes that desecration of the American Flag should be outlawed with a constitutional amendment. I have no problem with his desire to rid this country of something he finds offensive (I find the act disgracefull, but not offensive). But I do have two questions...
1) When judges in this country specifically say that Burning a flag is Constitutionaly protected by the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment (you do know your First Amendment rights don't you?) and then there is a new amendment that bars the action, which Amendment takes precedence? Any help on understanding this conundrum would be appreciated.
And...
2) Why is Mr. Manning not fuming and fretting over the fact that our fine president, Mr. Bush, has been caught desecrating flags at his speech stops by signing miniature flags with a Black Permanent Marker? More on that story here!
And since we're at it.... I find that people trolling through my personal records, be it banking, phone call logs, Internet site hits, or my trash cans, offensive. When are we going to pass the Personal Privacy Amendment? Oh that's right, we already have one. Its called the Fourth Amendment. Guess we've forgotten about that one!
Technorati Tags: First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Flag Burning
powered by performancing firefox
And then in the same edition there is this person who, and this is their right, believes that desecration of the American Flag should be outlawed with a constitutional amendment. I have no problem with his desire to rid this country of something he finds offensive (I find the act disgracefull, but not offensive). But I do have two questions...
1) When judges in this country specifically say that Burning a flag is Constitutionaly protected by the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment (you do know your First Amendment rights don't you?) and then there is a new amendment that bars the action, which Amendment takes precedence? Any help on understanding this conundrum would be appreciated.
And...
2) Why is Mr. Manning not fuming and fretting over the fact that our fine president, Mr. Bush, has been caught desecrating flags at his speech stops by signing miniature flags with a Black Permanent Marker? More on that story here!
And since we're at it.... I find that people trolling through my personal records, be it banking, phone call logs, Internet site hits, or my trash cans, offensive. When are we going to pass the Personal Privacy Amendment? Oh that's right, we already have one. Its called the Fourth Amendment. Guess we've forgotten about that one!
Technorati Tags: First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Flag Burning
powered by performancing firefox
Comments
If there is a direct conflict, the new amendment would control. Remember, prohibition? The amendment letting us all have gin in our martinis repealed the amendment saying gin was the devil's drink.
In this case, the question is a bit tougher. The view that the first amendment protects flag burners is just an interpretation by the Courts. We can overturn that interpretation through the amendment process without repealing any part of the First Amendemnt -- we would really be expressing our view that we disagree with the Court about what the First Amenment means.
I hope we don't -- I don't think we will.
The Twenty-first Amendment explicitly repealed the Eighteenth Amendment:
"Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."
An anti-flag-burning amendment would supersede the free-speech clause of the First Amendment in cases of flag desecration. It would render moot claims against questionable state or federal flag laws.
To what principles would an aggrieved person appeal? Certainly no longer to the idea that "Congress shall make no law," for the abridgement of free speech the First Amendment expressly prohibits would now be expressly allowed.
To impose such a contradiction upon the courts, and thus upon the American people, is unwise in the extreme. It steers into dangerous and uncharted waters.
If ever a concept may be said to create a slippery slope, this one qualifies. If judicial review can be side-stepped in cases of flag desecration, a thoughtful American might wonder what could come next. We already have certain people calling for the death of those who speak against the president.
But, for all the reasons doclarry says, I hope it doesn't come to that. And I really don't think it will. Too many of us grew up believing that part of what makes us great is that we can withstand dissent.