Telly Savalas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-05 11:51 PM
Original message |
Can someone explain this? |
|
On the Daily Show, I saw a clip of Rep. Cunningham saying that banning flag burning doesn't violate the first amendment. If this is true, why does this dumbass think we need a constitutional amendment to allow such a ban?
|
Wetzelbill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-05 11:53 PM
Response to Original message |
BattyDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-05 11:53 PM
Response to Original message |
|
:rofl:
That's a great catch! I never thought of that. :toast:
|
jobycom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-05 11:54 PM
Response to Original message |
3. You answered your own question when you said |
|
"dumbass." Beyond that, there isn't anything.
|
Count Popeula
(30 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-05 11:55 PM
Response to Original message |
4. That's simple enough... |
|
He understands it's protected by the first amendment, and that really chaps his ass, and if he makes some slight alterations, they can pass all kinds of crazy laws.
|
Burried News
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-05 12:03 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Easily Remidied, put it in the ammendment defining marriage. |
|
Good luck with that Cunningham.
|
mcctatas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-05 12:12 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Repukes hate the first amendment anyway, although I bet none of them |
|
have read it since high school....or how the Supreme Court settled this horseshit in 1984 from the majority (5:4) ruling: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagrable". Assholes should spend more time reading history rather than rewriting it!!:rant:
|
evilkumquat
(363 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-05 12:21 AM
Response to Original message |
7. In Indiana, It Is Already Banned, Per State Legislation. |
|
Edited on Fri Jun-24-05 12:22 AM by evilkumquat
The U.S. Constitution's protection of flag burning is more cut and dried than a mummy in a wood-chipper.
A) The only "official" way to dispose of old or damaged flags is by burning them reverently, in a special ceremony.
B) The only difference between a VFW flag burning ceremony and a protest flag burning is the intention behind the action.
C) Since it is the "intention" behind the burning that the government wants to ban, the government is clearly attempting to curtail a valid political expression of dissent.
D) Thus, banning flag burning as a form of protest CLEARLY violates the First Amendment. This is made extremely obvious by the hordes of governmental nitwits trying to amend the U.S. Constitution.
Would I ever burn a flag? Probably not, although if I was in one of those worst case survival situations, say, locked in a freezer, and it was a choice between either burning a flag or a good book... bye, bye, "Old Glory".
Does flag burning offend me? Not in the slightest.
I reserve my disgust for more important things (*cough- illegal war, prison torture, rigged voting- *cough).
Evil Kumquat
|
pansypoo53219
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-05 12:30 AM
Response to Original message |
|
if a soldier actually gives his life for a piece of cloth.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 08:04 AM
Response to Original message |