RSS/XML |
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
Dear Editor,
Yesterday as I was leaving my driveway, there was a young, wild-haired man standing on the sidewalk, burning the American flag. Third time this week. By the time I got to Hillsboro Road, I had passed two groups of hippies burning the flag and one yuppie polishing his car with an American flag. However, due to traffic delays, the daily Green Hills Flag Burning Convocation was over with by the time I got there.
Isn’t it about time we passed a constitutional amendment to stop all this flag burning and desecration? You can hardly cross the street without dodging some goon with a flag and a Zippo. Just two weeks ago, the family across the street set fire to three flags at the same time, then got out the marshmallows. I am ashamed to admit that I joined them and roasted two marshmallows myself before the fire went out. I have a craving for flag-roasted marshmallows now, but flag makers can’t keep up with the demand because so many people want flags to burn. I hear that a new, improved, “slow burn” flag is under development.
Well, it’s about time we screwed up the United States Constitution to put a stop to all this. The Constitution, “the most wonderful document ever struck by the hand of man,” according to English statesman Edmund Burke, is woefully inadequate to the stresses of millennial America. However, let us not pass an amendment for mere sentimental reasons, heavens, no! There are two good reasons for an anti-desecration amendment, too:
1. We will finally shake off the original intention of the Constitution’s framers. They wanted to maximize the power and rights of the people and limit the power and rights of the government. Unfortunately, every amendment so far has preserved this intention, sad to say. Now, with the anti-desecration amendment, we can thankfully start to reverse this trend and give the federal government even more power and limit the freedom of the people. It will be the first legal nail in the coffin of the Age of Enlightenment, with all that silly talk about unalienable rights and personal freedom. We’ll all be better off giving up freedom and power to the government, won’t we? Best of, it can’t be held unconstitutional because, hey, it is the Constitution!
2. We can start to establish a secular religion at the expense of that thorn in the side of governmental power, the first amendment. We will officially and legally establish the flag as an icon of worship and sanctity. It’s the perfect way to get around the prohibition against the government establishing a religion—we’ll make the flag a religious symbol and outlaw flag sacrilege! Of course, there is that pesky God of the Jewish and Christian scriptures who might send judgment upon us for violating the First Commandment by making the flag an idol, but it’s just the risk we’ll have to take.
So support the anti-desecration amendment! There’s no better time or opportunity to limit your freedoms, enhance the repressive powers of the government, or get a religious high without facing the one true God!
Comments policy
BLOGAD prices reduced!
Click here!
Why Blogads here work! and see here.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Dec | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
16 queries. 0.592 seconds
June 23rd, 2005 at 9:23 am
As much as I like your opinions, I have to point out that it is no great feat to beat the stuffing out of a strawman of your own creation.
Flag desecration is tradionally considered a form of “fighting words” and thus can be regulated, preferably at the state or local level. I agree with this tradition. The federal courts don’t. Apparetly the only way to legally return to the previous view is to remove the federal courts jurisdiction in this matter. I would prefer legislatively but constitutional remedies are, barely, acceptable if that is what it takes.
Our precious political free-speech rights would be more secure if the feds wouldn’t trivialize them by overexpansion.
Tob
June 23rd, 2005 at 9:37 am
This was a great post, but there’s a (not wholely) inconsequential nit to pick:
“They wanted to maximize the power and rights of the people and limit the power and rights of the government. Unfortunately, every amendment so far has preserved this intention, sad to say.”
In what way did the 18th amendment preserve that intention?
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:04 am
I pledge allegiance to the burning flags of the United States of America and to the Republic for which burning it stands one nation, underdog, of liberty loving flag burners for all.
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:12 am
TO: Toby928
RE: Fighting Words?
“Flag desecration is tradionally considered a form of “fighting words”...”—Toby928
I disagree. Fighting words in legal terms is a very narrow area and just being irritated is not justification to act on words or actions of others as if such words or actions were ‘fighting words’.
Burning the flag is like saying “F—- Y—-”. And saying “F—- Y—-” is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. See…http://www.llrmi.com/Articles/le-disorderlyconduct.cfm for some examples. I’m sure there are others, but these should suffice.
What I find interesting is that there a lots of examples of cases regarding “fighting words” but darn few examples of “fighting words”. This looks so nebulous that the definition may ultimately be thrown out. The way that “Conduct Unbecoming an Officer” was struck down as a crime, for being to vague. Anyone could redefine it to whatever they chose in order to persecute some individual.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:04 am
“What I find interesting is that there a lots of examples of cases regarding “fighting words” but darn few examples of “fighting words””
That’s actualy the problem. We used to have a saying “He’s a few whippin’s short of wisdom”. Everyone used to know, at the community level, what was acceptable and what was not. Sometime since my childhood, we have begun to think that ‘pushing the envelope’ and treating everything as a legal matter was somehow good. I disagree, nothing says ‘tone it down’ like a punch in the snoot. IMHO this is one of those areas. If the community would take charge, rather informally, then the courts wouldn’t need to step in.
Tob
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:13 am
After re-reading my post, let me clarify one thing. In this area, we do actually have a lot of case law about this. Its all misdemeanor cases though and so perhaps it has no precedential value (I’m no lawyer
)
As I said, in my youth when you did something that offensive, you generally got a shiner and the opportunity to think about the community that you lived in. Nobody used to take that to court unless the police had to be called to a general riot broke out or someone went to the hospital.
Tob
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:49 am
I used to be a habitual flagburner when I was in the Boy Scouts. I notice that the Boy Scouts in our community still collect old tattered flags for burning.
Will the War on Scouting ever cease? How many tenderfoots must we jail before their cries and suffering will end?
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:53 am
Controlled burns
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Do You Remember the Last Flag You Burned?
Donald Sensing has a good post called “A solution in search of a problem” about the flag burning amendment the House pushed forward. Yesterday as I was leaving my driveway, there was a young, wild-haired man standing on the sidewalk,...
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:08 pm
BTW, today’s S. Ct. decision, allowing the government to force you to sell you’re home to them so they can give it to a private developer is far more consequential than the flag-burning and ten comandment cases that will be discussed.
http://news.public.findlaw.com/real_estate/ap/o/624/06-23-2005/33ad003ae06f2a43.html
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
TO: All
RE: I’m Thinking About Burning a Flag
After enscribing it with the names, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.
This is horrible. I never, for a moment, believed the high court would decide this way. MY house is now in jeapordy, if the hospital can convince the city fathers to raze it to put in a parking lot.
I’m calling my congressional delegation to call for the impeachment of these cretins.
I recommend you all do the same.
Regards,
Chuck(le)[ss]
P.S. I suspect there is a concensus amongst these elitists that only the rich and powerful should own property. All the rest of us should ‘rent’. Well…I’ve seen what renters do to where they live. Not all of them, but the majority. And it is not good. It does not build a community.
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:28 pm
TO: Toby928
RE: A Good Punch
“I disagree, nothing says ‘tone it down’ like a punch in the snoot. ”—Toby928
Personally…I prefer a butt-stroke with an M14. [Note: The M16 is just too much of a wuss for that sort of thing. It has neither the heft nor the steel plate.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and O’Connor were the four dissenting judges.
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:41 pm
TO: E2
RE: Wrong
Rhinquist, Scalia, Thomas and O’Connor dissented from the majority of the afforementioned (see my earlier post) and cross reference with Drudge at http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:43 pm
P.S. Here’s the quotation from Drudge…
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:43 pm
One more thing.
Along with the amendment to the Constitution, it will be necessary to amend the 10 Commandments so that the pesky rule about not holding sacred tangible things like idols and pieces of colored cloth is deleted.
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Rod, LOL, I hardly think that the flag counts as an idol. Its more like the way I feel about my mother. I’ll suckerpunch anyone who defames her (and then run away to escape the Attack of the Lawyers).
Tob
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:09 pm
It seems folks just don’t want to understand that they may be “free” to say what they want in this country, but that “freedom” does not necessarily come without consequences. (Thanks, Th. Sowell)
To paraphrase Mr. Sowell (rather generously), try telling your boss he’s fat and has bad breath. Or try telling the missus that the datgum Dobermans wouldn’t even eat what she fixed you for supper…Yeah, I guess you’re free to say those things…
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html
“Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court’s majority, which also included Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter and Thomas.
Dissenting were Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and O’Connor.”
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:19 pm
TO: E2
RE: Sounds Like…
...the Post has some serious problems with its reportinug. Either they or Drudge’s source, which specializes in watching the SCOTUS.
Care to place a little wager on who is wrong?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:19 pm
I surrender.
I had the second Supremes decision.
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:22 pm
E2, the article you cite discusses two cases. Chuck has the correct breakdown for the condemnation case and you have the correct breackdown for the Exxon class action case.
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Well, E2, at least you beat me to the punch.
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:42 pm
TO: E2
RE: Surrender Accepted
You are hereby required to contact all the members of your congressional delegation; representative and both senators, and call upon them to impeach the cretinous justices.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
June 23rd, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Personally, I favor a new policy requiring
our flags to be manufactured from NOMEX®.
That should provide hours of entertainment
on the nightly news
June 23rd, 2005 at 4:55 pm
I have participated in many large public events where a giant flag is opened over a baseball or football field.
It may take 50-100 volunteers to hold it open, parallel to the ground. Becuase the possibility exists that the
flag might touch the ground it is made with 49 stars, so it is technically a replica or symbol of our flag.
If this craziness were to pass (fortunately very unlikely in the real world)all somebody has to do is make a slight modification
and it is not a “FLAG” - so burn away. Now we need to have another amendment outlawing anything that looks like a flag.
June 23rd, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Is society served by burning crosses on your neighbor’s lawn as a form of free speech? If not why should we tolerate flag bruning. For those who disrespect the symbolism of the flag will show the same behavior in society, lowering the standards of behavior and courtesy.
If one disagrees with Bush why burn the flag and not Bush’s photo? I would suggest that those who burn the flag have nothing but distain for what it respresents and would impose their own gulag/progessive society very much at home in places like Havana or Hanoi.
I see far greater dangers in a judicial system that can ignore the 5th Amendment and destroy the concept of private property. This is the way a democracy becomes despotic. Not through the legal amending of the Constitution.
June 23rd, 2005 at 7:42 pm
TO: TJ Jackson
RE: Burnings & Neighbors’ Property
“Is society served by burning crosses on your neighbor’s lawn as a form of free speech?”—TJ Jackson
Isn’t there some issue about ‘trespass’ and ‘arson’ involved when one brings the neighbors into this?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Target….cease fire….regarding the Kelo decision.
[There’s a storm coming.—Terminator]
June 23rd, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Burning crosses falls into the category of hate crimes.
Of course, the flag wouldn’t be coverd in that category.
June 23rd, 2005 at 8:00 pm
And of course neither the cross or the flag are protected speech.
So why not just drop the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag in schools and teach our young ones, flag burning and protest in its place ?
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:32 pm
It really offends me that someone would burn the flag, but as long as it is the right of the people, I will
continue to protect that right. Not that I won’t say something. I will walk up to them and tell them what
a commie @#*&%! thay are. If they swing at me, good to go, game on. aThose kinds of people have no guts
anyway. Or better yet, stop and salute, that will really tick em off! Nothing interrupts your hate ceromony
better that a bunch of bystanders sompletly ignoring your haate rant, but paying respects to the flag.
LCpl Sensing
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:36 pm
If this passes, I’ll burn the Flag and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance in a toilet. And that’s after I use the toilet.
That is, if the city lets me keep my house instead of making it a Wal-Mart.
June 24th, 2005 at 12:30 am
This post is sheer genius! Just when I was beginning to think all the smart people in this country are liberal, you go and post something wonderful like this! Keep up the good work!
June 24th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
TO: Stephen Sensing
RE: Uuuuhhhh….
“Those kinds of people have no guts anyway.”—Stephen Sensing
....I do believe that you, your father, and I all took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And against ALL ‘enemies’. That includes the foreign persuasion and the domestic.
Here’s your essay question for tonight….
At what point does the government become the domestic enemy?
I’ve pondered that, off and on, for the last 35 years. I’m still trying to grapple with it. But I think a key indicator just showed up….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. During the deployment to the May Day Riots in DC (‘71) I was a young snuff, just like you; albeit a paratrooper.
We were discussing at what point we’d stop obeying the officers. I think there was a concensus that if the officer told us to shoot someone, and we determined that the situation was not in accordance with what we had been briefed about the use of deadly force (post Kent State) we’d refuse. And if he threatened to shoot the ones who refused, he’d be a dead man the moment he pulled his pistol. I do believe that the entire platoon would have pulled the trigger on the hapless fellow.
Fortunately the situation never developed. I liked the LT. However the guy that batt put in there with him to ‘help’ was ‘questionable’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
June 26th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
[...] n’t had a chance to beat me up for my own expression of opposition to the amendment, here’s another chance.
[link]
C [...]
June 27th, 2005 at 9:09 am
FInally a right winger who gets it! Good work. I hope this post helps slap some sense into some of your cohorts.
June 27th, 2005 at 10:03 am
What makes you think I’m a “right winger?” Does your characterization of me that way mean that you see yourself as a “left winger?”
June 27th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
It would appear from the quick scan of your blog that you’re definitely right of center. I meant no disrespect by that comment, and I certainly consider myself a left winger.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Thank you, Donald, for pointing out (whether your habitual readers need it pointed out or not) that the govermnent is not the country. If someone in a position of power does something heinous, it’s still heinous, and it should be treated as such—whether it’s issuing an order to shoot rioters, gutting air quality protections, or siply appointing judges who are intent on restricting freedoms.
One of my favorite quotes for our times is from Theodore Roosevelt:
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The president is just a person, who is not by definition above wrongdoing. Lord knows that men such as Tom DeLay (famously quoted as saying “I am the federal government!”) are also just people, as fallible and corruptible as anyone else, and subject to the lure of unfettered power. It’s been my observation that people all over the political spectrum have in recent decades been celebritized, forgetting that their jobs are to serve the public, not to use and abuse the nation’s various resources for their personal gain.
OK, babbling now—but I appreciated this post immensely. Again, thank you.
June 27th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
TO: Jason Buckley
RE: The Center
“It would appear from the quick scan of your blog that you’re definitely right of center.”—Jason Buckley
Where is the ‘center’? Got a ‘bench mark’ I can reference?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
June 28th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
“Where is the ‘center’? Got a ‘bench mark’ I can reference?”
Sandra Day O’Connor?
(Tongue only partly in cheek)
October 30th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
forex trading secrets
You can also take a look at some relevant information on eminis futures trading