This issue is about to be debated by the Senate.
Though I think flag burning is derespectful I cannot see why there has to be a law against it. To me, this is a free speech issue and if someone wants to be disrespectful then go right ahead. That is what makes this country awesome. That we allow people (though we disagree with them) to speak what is on their mind.
I view this issue the same way I view the KKK. They are a bunch of retards, but they should be allowed to say what they want.
Also, how many people are out there burning flags. I mean is there some epidemic that I am not aware of. Some new fad that is sweeping the nation.
Go ahead, burn a flag, say you think one race is better than another - I do not care. I will be here making fun of you - becuase I can under the same amendment.
GO USA
4 comments:
So the vote was close. I cannot believe I am about to say this, but I agree with John Kerry on this one. Maybe that is saying something???
When you are talking about amending the CONSTITUTION - it better be for the benefit of everyone. This law seems like a symbolic gesture - and it does not affect that many people. If your city or town wants to make it their law = that is one thing - but amending the constitution - Bare down cobra!
The democratic process you speak of is exactly what is happening right now. The Judiciary ruled that something was unconstitutional, which is a check and balance that I hope you are willing to agree is pretty neccessary, and now the Legislation is deciding whether or not to ammend the constitution. However, them passing this ammendment does NOT show that the system works, NOR does them failing to pass it demonstrate a success of 'judicial tyranny.'
They have to decide what is best for the country. Whichever way they decide, they have excercised their constitutional duty. And I'd just like to go on record as agreeing that I do not want them to pass it, because it seems like election-year politics that doesn't really help anyone and does set a dangerous precedent.
You're right, our founding fathers clearly did not intend for the constitution to ever change form it's 'originalist' form; that's why they didn't give the judiciary the power to interpret the constitution, nor did they give the legislation the power to amend the constitution. They definitely felt that a static, inflexible constitution was the best way to ensure that our coutry successfully met the circumstances and challenges of the future.
Post a Comment