June 22, 2005
Save Me From the GOP!
Oh wait. I guess I am a Republican. But when I read things like this I wonder why.
WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.
Worse still, my opinion is best summed up by Uber-weenie Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."Posted by jk at June 22, 2005 3:00 PM
Although I agree with the spirit and goal of the law/amendment, I find it hard to imagine how someone can legislate "respect."
It's going to be obviously unenforceable. How many flag burning dirty hippies can you really arrest before you get tired of it?
Posted by: AlexC at June 22, 2005 10:23 PMI've always felt pretty strongly, as Rep Nadler says, that the idea of freedom is so strong that we even allow the desecration of its most important symbol.
Also, as Glenn pointed out (AFTER I POSTED, I beat Insty!) with a war and a broken pension system and an insane tax structure, one wishes our dear Congress could find something more important to meddle in.
Posted by: jk at June 23, 2005 12:15 PMMy personal judgement of those who burn the American flag is that they are filthy little beasts.
Nonetheless, the motivation to outlaw inflammatory flag burning is because "it makes people mad." How is this any different than laws that forbid "hate speech" directed towards minorities and gays? It isn't. It's the same lame attempt, for the same lame reason, but by a different offended group - patriotic, red-blooded Americans.
As Dagny says, two wrongs don't make a right. I say, scuttle the flag burning amendment and repeal every manner of "hate crime" law.
Posted by: johngalt at June 23, 2005 2:43 PMPlease don't misunderstand -- anybody who burns a flag should be repeatedly kicked in the face by the nearest available Marine.
But he should not be arrested or subject to criminal penalties, just kicked in the face. The beauty of this is that you don't need ratification by the States.
Posted by: jk at June 23, 2005 4:30 PMJohn Galt is absolutely right about laws governing "hate speech." Almost as galling as their very existence is the selective enforcement we see, courtesy of the left wing thought police. Burn a cross on a blackman's lawn and that is hate speech. Put a cross in a jar of urine and it is art. It is illegal to offend someone of color but perfectley fine to offend someone of faith.
Posted by: sugarchuck at June 23, 2005 4:34 PM | What do you think? [5]I find it troublesome that the speech most valued by our founding fathers, political speech,
is less protected than Larry Flynt's first amendment right to pedal porn. That this diminution of our right to express ourselves politically can largely be blamed on Republicans is all the more abhorent.