With the Flag burning amendment, Can't it be ruled Unconstitutional

[DemGirl7]

by the Supreme Court?? I remember that while doing this project on Supreme Court decisions in my High school Participation In Government Class, one of the cases I reserched was this one from the 1980's how this one guy was arrested for burning an flag at a protest, and I remember that eventually it went to the Supreme Court, and they ruled that burning the flag was symbolic speech, and was defended by the 1st amendment, I can't remember the name of the case, but I remember thats what happened. Therefore If this amendment passes, and since Congress can be checked by the president, and/or the Supreme Court, can't it be ruled Unconstitutional, because a similar thing happened before, and that it goes against the 1st amendment protection of free speech, right?

[Kraklen]

1. It would be in direct contradiction with the first amendment.

So I think that the first amendment would take precedent over the new one.

Unless the new amendment specifically repeals the first amendment.

In which case it's time to emigrate.

[DS9Voy]

45. New amendments

always trump older sections of the constitution.

[Kraklen]

101. I don't know about that.

I think they have to explicitly state that the former section has been appealed, the prohibition amendments for example.

[Mass]

2. I dont think a constitutionnal amendment can be ruled anti-constitutionnal

as its goal is to change the constitution.

Anyway, it needs to pass the house and the senate by 2/3 (I think), and be ratified by a certain number of states.

[aresef]

33. Yes, 38 state legislatures need to approve.

Which I doubt will happen.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. Relax

It's pretty hard to get an amendment added to the Constitution. Remember the Equal Rights Amendment (which was also bad law)?

Relax. Go read up on how an amendment becomes an amendment - all you have now is a meaningless, pandering, diversionary tactic called a "vote" - and when you find out, you'll understand even better why these assholes should all be keelhauled and ditched.

http://tinyurl.com/yswk7

After you read it, you'll be even more powerful and less susceptible to their tomfoolery and drivel.

Education is a wonderful thing.

Now, go get smart.

[Guaranteed]

7. There's no need to talk down to people. nt

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. Get your head out of your butt

You just got a great deal of good information that you didn't have.

You didn't have it, I did, and your proper response should be "Thank you." After you read it.

Shame on you.

[Guaranteed]

11. At least I read the screen names of the people I'm responding to

before I try to insult them.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. I don't

I'm much more concerned with what is said. Names don't interest me. What is posted interests me.

And if you think I insulted anyone, well, let me suggest you get your head out of your butt.

[Guaranteed]

15. Clearly.

But, as has been demonstrated, there's important information to be read over there on the right hand side.

Unless, of course, your rectum is getting in the way.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. Thanks for the laugh

Oh, dear. Did you think I was responding to YOU when I made the "get your head out of your butt" response?

Well, you got that wrong. Perhaps one of us SHOULD pay attention to that information on the right - but, alas, it would be you.

[Guaranteed]

27. ??????

Hey, keep going.

Isn't that what you do as a prosecutor with a babbling defendant on the stand? Just let em keep talking?

[Taylor Mason Powell]

8. I don't know...

Generally, you're right, but they're saying that they're closer than ever to getting it past the Senate this time. They're within one or two votes. After that, it will have to be ratified by 38 states, but nearly all state legislatures have passed resolutions in support of the amendment. (This according to the ACLU's website).

So, while the amendment has gone down to defeat every time it's been introduced SO FAR, I'm not sure I'd relax about this just yet.

TMP
(A Young-ish Leftie Lawyer)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Read how it works

It has to go to a new vote. Do you have any idea how long that takes? There's no grandfather provision.

Besides, who gives a shit? If it's made into law, it'll be immediately challenged, and if the challenge fails at the SC, then I guess Bush won't be able to sign any more American flags, huh?

Talk about diversion. Why care about this at all?

Relax. Deal with bigger stuff. If you're a youngish LeftieLawyer, you shouldn't be wasting your time with this stuff - you should be crushing rightwingnut skulls. (They're actually paper-thin.)

[podnoi]

42. I say fight it. If it passes a vote it will be a year long "patriotic"

diversion. It will give the right wing another grandstanding issue. Better not to let it get to the States/

[OldLeftieLawyer]

48. I say "fuck it"

and keep screaming about Iraq, Guantanamo, health care, oil prices, etc.

This is our new Terri Schiavo.

[cynatnite]

12. I had been on DU less than a month when someone told me

to read the constitution and bill of rights. I printed everything out and spent that evening reading every word.

Best advice I ever got!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. Good for you!

I've had a lifelong love affair with the document. Studied it in law school, practiced it, taught Constitutional Law in law schools, and after all these years, it continues to amaze me.

It is the most amazing document.

I'm very glad you took that sound advice. Might I add one bit more?

Read it again. At least once a year.

[cynatnite]

20. It's sitting in my desk drawer. I will since it's been a while :) n/t

[Synnical]

26. Q for you OldLeftieLawyer (off topic)

Do you remember another OldLeftie Lawyer - Vincent Hallinan of San Francisco and the infamous Bridges Case? I'm trying to track down a lawsuit he filed in the 60's. If you do, may I PM you?

Thanks in advance,
Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[OldLeftieLawyer]

35. I'm not THAT old

I'm not even as old as his son Terence. But, yeah, I know some about Vincent Halinan, who copped to a contempt sentence rather than be quiet while his client was railroaded by the US government. He was a damn hero, Vincent Halinan.

As for any other cases he might have filed in the sixties, I know nothing. Your best bet is to go to the courthouse and make a friend with one of the recording clerks. They'll find what you're looking for.

But, sure, you can PM me, Cindy. I just don't think I'll be much help to you. We can try, though.

[Synnical]

56. Well, you're a young man, then!

Not an "Old" leftie! Hiding behind your name, are ya? :)

Damn right Hallinan was a hero! Should be part of American History.

Anyway, this is the lawsuit I'm trying to track down:

http://www.sffaith.com/ed/news/0100news.htm

Vincent Hallinan, once sued the Archdiocese of San Francisco, claiming it was defrauding parishioners by asking them to donate money to the Church with promises of eternal life. Hallinan demanded the Church prove the existence of Heaven, giving longitude and latitude. The judge dismissed the case, saying his jurisdiction was temporal.

I live in South Florida, getting to San Fran is difficult. But, thanks, I'll PM you. Have to walk my dog now.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

65. The easiest way to get what you want,

if I were in your position, would be to write to Terence Halinan, and ask for his help. My guess is that he'll send you what you need, or, at the very least, give you a great jump ahead.

Here's a place to start with the courthouse records, in the meantime: http://tinyurl.com/b6e7e. I'm sure they could tell you how to reach Terence Hallinan these days, too.

Oh, and I'm a girlOldLeftieLawyer. Isn't that wonderful?

[Synnical]

67. Girlfriend

I love ya! You write like a man, just as I do!

Thanks for the links.

Big OLE SMOOCH!

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[OldLeftieLawyer]

99. The pleasure is all mine, honey

(I'm still older than you, I know it)

Let me know how it goes, all right? Hallinan was so great.

Thanks.............

[fujiyama]

75. One question about the reasoning

I think I understand why this potential new flag amendment cannot be ruled unconstitutional, but is this only because burning the flag is not specifically mentioned in the constitution?

Theoretically say one of the 10 original amendments to the bill of rights actually mentioned specifically that "burning the flag is a permissable form of protest". In that case would the new amendment still trump whatever is mentioned, even if it is in violation of something mentioned in the bill of rights? Or does it really matter which section it is defined in, in the constitution? I think I've had a mistaken impression of constitutinal law and the interpretation of the constitution by the courts.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

97. Try this:

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Right? So, there you have a guaranteed, protected right - the right to speak your mind freely without government interference.

That said, there is no such thing as absolutely free speech.

The classic example is that you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, cause a riot, a stampede, cause people to be injured, and then claim you are not subject to prosecution because you are guaranteed free speech. You are not.

So, when an amendment comes along that looks like it might infringe on aonther Constitutional amendment, as in this case, you must keep in mind that the Constitution, that beautiful, powerful thing, is a living document that is constantly changing, constantly subject to interpetation, constantly rearranging how our liberties and lives are affected.

I hope this helps clear up the awful misunderstanding that's been bandied about here. While there is beauty in all of the Constitution, it is a complex and complicated document, and what seems simple on its face, well, none of it is simple.

If you want a wonderful example of what I'm saying here, read the opinions in the medical marijuana case, and keep in mind that the Commerce Clause was used to break the backs of the segregationists fifty years ago, or so, and then see how it's used here. Will you be left scratching your head? Yes, you will, because the Supreme Court does things here with the Commerce Clause that should be reserved for Cirque du Soleil, at the same time sending loud and clear messages to Congress (it's all in the subtext).

Here is Raich v. Ashcroft: http://tinyurl.com/4zvvn

[Taylor Mason Powell]

4. No.

An amendment to the constitution cannot be ruled unconstitutional. What you're thinking of is the case of Texas v. Johnson, in which the Supreme Court declared an anti-flag-burning LAW unconstitutional.

Now, there would seem to be a conflict between the flag amendment and the first amendment. I'm not sure how that would play out. My guess is, they would just operate in tandem, meaning we'd have free speech except for THAT.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

21. Damn, you're right

That was the big case when I was a kid. You're right.

It's entirely possible that the current populace - such as it is - would rather not see protected speech, and, if that's the case, well, I own a house on Prince Edward Island precisely for that reason.

Thanks for the catch. Well done.

Now, go crush skulls.

[Guaranteed]

5. Well, it would be part of the Constitution.

And since it would be in direct opposition to the 1st Amendment, I have no idea what would happen.

[DS9Voy]

49. New amendments always trump anything older

[Guaranteed]

88. ....Only if the old ones are changed. nt

[bowens43]

6. No. An amendment to the Constitution

cannot be unconstitutional.

[TalkingDog]

9. as an artist who has studied too much deconstructionism, here's my ???

If you have a large paper print out of a flag and you burn it, are you burning the flag?

If you print a flag pattern onto a very large canvas, hoist it up a flag pole, bring it down and burn it...is that illegal?

If you make a very tiny 1 x 2.5 inch flag out of flag material and burn it are you committing a crime?

Where does the idea of flag stop and the actuality of flag begin?

[Mythsaje]

55. I have a thread that asks similar questions n/t

[mitchum]

69. I have long wondered the same...

and have always planned to test the ideas if such an idiotic law is ever passed.

[DemNoir]

16. You need the amendment to have a law

If they tried to pass a law making flag burning a crime it would be struck down as unconstitutional.

The amendment would make such a law constitutional.

[dave502d]

19. I can see it now,20 year in prison for burning the flag.n/t

[bluestateguy]

22. No, but I'll tell you what a judge can do

and that is to interpret the amendment so narrowly that it rarely applies.

The first question the courts will have to resolve is "what is the definition of a 'flag'" A judge could very well say that a "flag" covered under the flag burning law must be made of the right cloth, be the right size and up to all US flag specifications. In other words, having flag colored underwear would not count.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. Here we go again,

all those flag-covered bongs.

Those condoms with the flag on them.

Flag-colored suppositories.

Protected speech?

[Guaranteed]

25. That's true. It's always up to the judges.

They could even come up with some kind of new doctrine applying to Constituional articles/amendments that contradict each other- that the first applies, and the second doesn't. Maybe we could come up with a name for it.

[DS9Voy]

52. Um actually that would be unconstitutional

the constitution provides a CONSTITUTIONAL means to change the constitution. That method includes changing older sections.

Therefore doing anything to obstruct the constitutional means to amend the constitution would be unconstitutional.

A court ruling that the first always applies and the new amendment doesn't would essentially prevent constitutional amendment... something the constitution does not allow a court to do.

[Guaranteed]

54. No, judges are the ones who get to interpret the Constitution-

as far as the Constitution is concerned.

And if you're saying that you wouldn't actually change the 1st Amendment to reflect another amendment, as has always been done before, I think the judges will be in a helluva bind.

Myself, I wouldn't change a damned thing about the 1st Amendment, and it doesn't look as if they're planning on it.

[DS9Voy]

60. Oh for god sakes

Please stop listening to right wing spin.

Yes a judge can interpret the constitution, but a judge can NOT nullify sections of it. Only an *amendment* can do that.

You suggested that a judge could simply come up with something saying "the older part trumps the new amendment".

That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the constitution states that you CAN amend the constitution and such a ruling would PREVENT the constitutional means of amending the constitution. Also - we have 200 years of it being JUST THE OPPOSITE to take in to account. If such a ruling was ever made (it wouldn't be, because the legal reasoning for it would be totally bogus) then older sections of the constitution - such as who is 3/5ths a person - would be in effect still.

Again, the first amendment language would not change. HOWEVER the first amendment (if this amendment passed) could not be used as reason to "not respect the flag".

[Guaranteed]

61. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And I don't see how

you could tell a judge he couldn't do that, especially when he's defending the *1st* Amendment.

If I was a judge, I'd tell Congress that they'd have to amend the 1st Amendment as well. When the NEWER amendments have trumped the old in the past, that's how they've always done it.

If Congress doesn't have the balls to do that, maybe the amendment isn't representing the will of the people.

[DS9Voy]

62. You would never be a judge that did that

because your legal understanding would obviously be highly lacking for such a position.

A judge can't just "tell" congress what to do on a whim. In order for a judge to do ANYTHING 99% of the time a case actually has to come before the court.

A judge can not walk over to congress and say "No, you can't pass this amendment unless you do X". It just doesn't work that way.

I would suggest you take government at your local college before you speak on the matter further.

[Guaranteed]

70. A judge also doesn't have to rule any such way someone else pleases.

That, again, is right there in the Constitution.

If a judge wants to say that the 1st Amendment is a helluva lot more important than some bullshit jingoistic anti-flag-desecration amendment, I'd sure as hell understand where he's coming from. And he has to pick one of them. Who are you to say that he has to pick the second one when the *1st* Amendment hasn't been changed?

He'd be correct in making that assessment, too.

[bowens43]

28. Actually

the Amendment doesn't ban flag burning or any other form flag desecration. It gives congress the power to pass laws to ban desecration.

It says:

“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

[WePurrsevere]

44. Yes, ALL the Amendment would do is give Congress the power to prohibit...

so from the exact wording you posted there seems to be at least some hope even if it did pass through the whole process (which I'm dubious about but have learned to never say never espcially with certain Neo-Cons "fixing" things the way they want them).

Theorethically even if the Republicans could together enough votes to pass a Bill saying "Desecrating the flag is illegal" when eventually a more sane and progressive party takes power that Bill could be repealed.... as the power see saws the laws on this could also.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. Yep

First amendment. Also if this does go through Bush would have to be arrested. Why? There's that famous photo of him at some rally signing on the actual flag. That's a BIG no-no with the flag rules. Also all these tshirts, beanie bears, banadanas etc. have gotta go. There goes the fourth of July festivities.

[Massacure]

34. You cannot be arrested for violating a law before the law is made.

For instance if this were to pass and get enforced starting at 12:00 AM on January 1, 2008, then you could burn the flag at 11:59 PM on December 31, 2007 and not be prosecuted for it.

[beyurslf]

29. No. Constitutional Amendments are constitutional no matter what--

even if they violate one of the other amendments.

[Guaranteed]

30. But it does seem as if you can't have the Constitution contradict

itself.

One would think that judges would have to work out which amendment takes precedence. You can't have two amendments saying things in opposition to each other. And clearly the 1st Amendment protects political speech, which encompasses flag burning.

[beyurslf]

31. The Flag Amendment would be an exception to the 1st Amendment.

BTW, I should put on the record I am absolutely against the Flag Amendment.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

36. That's why they're called "amendments"

A simple word, amend.

If not for amendments, some people wouldn't be able to vote, according to the Constitution.

[Guaranteed]

38. Those "amendments" typically get reconciled with the rest of the

Constitution, though. You obviously can't have it contradicting itself.

For example, they went ahead and crossed out that whole 3/5's vote thing.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

39. ::: sigh :::

So much for trying to edify the unreachable.

Still didn't figure out that "right side" thing yet, did you?

You're cute. I'm pretty sure I saw you on the Soupy Sales show a long time ago.

[Guaranteed]

40. I don't think anybody's figured that one out.

So, yeah, you can go ahead and explain how you can have two Constitutional amendments contradicting each other if you like.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

81. You and I have a different interpretation of who showed up whom....

Heck, the amendment process and the interpretation of them by the courts ain't rocket science. Heck, its more like Paralegalism 101.

[Guaranteed]

84. We certainly do. You should have a look at Article III of the United

States Constitution, Sections 1 and 2. That's where it sets out the fact that the judiciary gets to interpret our laws.

Remember when we were arguing this during the Schiavo case? Same thing.

You're not saying that Congress gets to interpret our laws and make judgments, are you?

[tx_dem41]

87. While you're reading the Constitution read about the amendment...

process. Why a paralegal is continuously mistaking an "amendment" for a "law" is beyond me.

[Guaranteed]

89. Amendments are laws, my friend.

The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land." Even someone with an 8th grade education should know that. In any case, you seem to be implying that the judiciary doesn't get to interpret the Constitution. That's just totally ridiculous.

And- what about the amendment process? What does that have to do with the way the judiciary interprets the Constitution, which is their job and their right?

Where are you going with this?

[gregoryjgrose]

51. Latest one passed rules. What else'd make sense? eom

[DS9Voy]

53. You are right

the constitution can not be in conflict with it's self. Therefore the established practice for the past 200 years has been anything newer trumps anything older. (since the NEWER section would obviously be intended to trump the older section)

[Guaranteed]

59. Unless, of course, you're talking about the 1st Amendment.

Which, obviously, in America, can't be trumped without serious, imminent threats of violence.

[gregoryjgrose]

63. One would hope, but...

...the devil in the details is that it is up to the Congress and the States (therefore, emphatically not up to the Supreme Court) by way of the amendment process, to determine the whats/whens/ifs of serious, imminent threats of violence, or whatever the threshold may be for amending the Constitution with respect to the 1st Amendment.

A trivia point, the only, if memory serves, bit of the Constitution that is supposed to be harder-than-usual to amend, is the piece protecting each State's equal representation in the Senate. But no flames please if I'm wrong.


--GG

[Guaranteed]

72. No, it's up to the courts to interpret it.

Congress writes the laws. The courts interpret them.

[WillowTree]

78. What you don't seem to be able to comprehend...

....is that once an amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. It would be completely nonsensical for a court to do what you're suggesting because it would, for all intents and purposes, be declaring a part of the Constitution itself unconstitutional which is a total contradiction.

IF the proposed amendment is ratified, which is a pretty big "if", it would accomplish exactly what you've suggested repeatedly on this thread. It would amend the First Amendment.

[Guaranteed]

91. You're not following the argument at all.

We're arguing about conflicting Constitutional amendments and how they can be interpreted.

e.g. the 1st Amendment going up against a flag-burning amendment.

[WillowTree]

94. Methinks you're being intentionally dense.

Either that, or you're reading selectively.

Any amendment that would be ratified today would amend what's already there, including the foregoing amendments. Ergo, once it's ratified, if it's ratified, there is no conflict because the First Amendment will have been modified to exclude flag descecration as a form of protected free expression. At that juncture, the only way to change it would be to get a whole 'nother amendment ratified to repeal it, as happened whtn the twenty-first amendment was passed to nullify the eighteenth amendment.

But the courts have no part in this, nor does the Constitution give them any power over the process.

[Guaranteed]

95. As long as the 1st Amendment stays the way it is, they haven't

amended it- only the Constitution. And, again, it is up to the courts to interpret the Constitution in the way that they see fit, which they'd obviously have to do anyway considering that the two amendments would be opposing each other.

You're saying that I'm saying that the court would declare part of the Constitution unconstitutional. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in that the Constitution would be contradicting itself, the courts would have to resolve the contradiction.

[DS9Voy]

64. The first amendment is equal to all other parts of the constitution

except anything newer that conflicts with it.

The first amendment is not any more special or powerful than the 4th or 5th or article 1 section 2.

[Guaranteed]

71. Technically, but we all know that's bullshit.

There's a reason it's the 1st Amendment. It's PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH.

ESSENTIAL FOR REAL DEMOCRACY. PERIOD.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

85. Uh oh

Somebody's confused the decaf with the regular.

And now, look what you've become:

[Guaranteed]

92. You should have proper respect for the 1st Amendment, as a lawyer. nt

[OldLeftieLawyer]

100. I certainly do

and as a paralegal, you probably should wipe down the rest rooms before you leave tonight.

[Guaranteed]

102. Why? I already wiped them down

with you.

[many a good man]

32. Will the Amish and Jehovah's Witnesses get special exemptions?

After all the SC ruled that they can't be forced to salute the flag or pledge allegiance for religious reasons.

I don't understand why all Christians don't have a problem with "desecration" of the flag.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

37. You'd think Christians,

like any other sentient (or am I asking for too much?) American, would be more concerned with protecting free speech than getting their collective knickers in a twist about a symbol meant to represent the very speech they are now trying to limit.

I truly am beginning to think my beloved country is doomed.

[DS9Voy]

57. Constitutional amendments trump SCOTUS rulings

Also this amendment would not require one to salute.

[DS9Voy]

47. People for the love of god

a constitutional amendment can never under ANY situation be ruled "unconstitutional".

[Must_B_Free]

50. The Flag Burning Amendment IS desecration of what the flag stands for!

And around your conservative co works say "What the heck is this? A communist country"?

[tx_dem41]

68. No....an amendment is just that...it would become the Constitution...

and thus, not be capable of being "Unconstitutional.".

[Starbucks Anarchist]

73. Just curious...

Is this the first time this amendment's been brought up since 9/11?

[Jane Eyre]

76. It would be constitutional, open to interpretation by the courts

Amendments to the constitution are, by definition, constitutional. So it would in effect trump the First Amendment, at least in this one area. The courts can't throw it out, and Congress can't change it without going through the whole process again.

It seems to me that it would be akin in some ways to the constitutional amendment prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol in the early 20th century. Granted, more people are interested in drinking than in burning the flag! But the prohibition of alcohol and flag-burning are alike in that both take away rights that had existed previously. And both have the roots of their origin in fundamentalist religion.

There are fuzzy lines concerning which rights have been actually taken away. This isn't specifically a "flag-burning" amendment, it is a "flag anti-desecretion" amendment. The very definition of the word "desecretion" is "to show a lack of respect for or cause damage to a sacred object". So a flag anti-desecretion constitutional amendment would both limit free speech and dictate that certain items must be considered sacred by force of law. What is an American flag, under law? Are Stars & Stripes on boxer shorts and bikinis to be outlawed as being disrespectful to our new national religion? How about leaving a flag out in the rain and weather until it frays and fades? What about Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to pay homage to this new religious symbol? So far, the Jehovah's Witnesses always win in court under the First Amendment - but what happens when a devout Jehovah's Witness protests the new national religion in a manner which could be considered desecretion of the new Sacred Object of the State Religion?

[Guaranteed]

80. Yes, but then there's also the wording of this part of the Constitution

that they're going to have to get around, if they don't change it (which they NEVER would):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

You know, it says *Congress* shall make no law...does that mean that Congress can not, in fact, amend the Constitution in such a way that would abridge freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech. Surely that means political speech. No- we KNOW that means political speech.

Or freedom of the press? What if a journalist burns the flag? Or how about a group of people assembling to burn the flag, peacefully?

What about the interpretation ***that burning the flag is actually a *petition* to the government for a redress of grievances?***

How many other ways does the 1st Amendment have to cover flag-burning as protected, political speech? How is this not even STRONGER than any possible flag-burning amendment that Congress might pass?

Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if this passed. No doubt. That's so cliche, but I almost would take it literally. This idea is just that unbelievable.

It is absolutely unbelievable that good Americans who enjoy their freedom, knowingly, would even entertain this for a second.

Officially not America.

[Jane Eyre]

82. Yep, that is why it is such a really bad idea

The Constitution says that CONGRESS shall make no law, but a constitutional amendment is only started in Congress. The law isn't made there, it is made only after the 38th state ratifies it. The people literally get the last word on this...well, except for the courts (should it pass) where the real fun would start.

The fact that such an amendment would attempt to curtail two of the most basic rights that our government has protected from the beginning - freedom of speech and no establishment of a national religion - would be a very big problem. It is the proverbial camel's nose under the constitutional tent.

The only way that these rights can be taken away from the people is if the people overwhelmingly vote to relinquish these rights. It takes a two-thirds majority of the states to amend the constitution, which shows that our founding fathers did not believe that amending the constitution should be taken lightly. The latest polls showing that Americans see through this fraud is an indication that the people will not be easily misled into giving up their rights.

[Guaranteed]

86. But not without changing the 1st Amendment.

That's my point.

All the rest is beside it.

[Pryderi]

77. Bush signing the flag while campaigning in Michigan June 2003

<img src="">

Will we have to follow all of the flag rules listed on this page?

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

[Liberal In Texas]

90. I know this will be lost in this long thread, but...THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO

DO THIS FOR 40 YEARS!

It's a distraction.

Get everybody all lathered up about the FLAG. Meanwhile the bloody country is falling apart.

PLEASE...FORGET THIS DEBATE..IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING!

[bowens43]

93. You couldn't be more wrong.

An attack on the 1st Amendment is as important, if not more important, then most issues we face today. The Constitution was created to place limitations on the powers of the government not to place limitations on the freedoms of the citizens of the US. This will set precedent. In the future when something that the majority wants is declared unconstitutional , the Constitution will be modified to make it constitutional. The Constitution was intended to protect the rights of the minority as well as limit the power of the government. This amendment is a first step in eroding that protection and further enpowering the government.

This is a BIG FUCKING DEAL perhaps the BIGGEST that we have faced in a very long while.

You're right, they have been trying to do this for 40 years and this time they may succeed.

[Independent_Liberal]

96. I'm not sure...

States can rule certain bills as unconstitutional. If this Flag Amendment is a Constitutional Amendment, I don't know. It could be a different story altogether. There have been so many proposed Constitutional Amendments that have never seen the light of day.