Begin forwarded message:
From: DV Henkel-Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: June 28, 2006 6:21:44 PM EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning
Your point about the constitutionality is great. I have always found
that amusing too.
Nevertheless there are several legitimate, conservative reasons to
oppose such an amendment and I would think they would have been
discussed to death. Here are a couple:
1 - "Freedom of expression" is not just a slogan, it's a crucial part
of the identity of the country and its something that people have
bent over backwards to support (e.g. allowing Nazis to march). The
roots of that philosophy as part of the national identity are over
two centuries old and stem from revolutionary history as a reaction
to British colonial history. Government restrictions on that speech
generally have fallen into two groups: physical danger (e.g. the
famous "fire in a crowded theatre" decision) and what turn out
ultimately to be temporary restrictions (e.g. the Alien and Sedition
act). Revoking a constitutional amendment is a lot hairier than
revoking a law.
In addition, I have found that the kind of societies that elevate
banners tend not to be the kind of countries that care about human
rights -- rather the opposite (you can pick your own favorite -- it
has always been a consistent element of communist societies , but the
attitude goes back to the imperial roman armies). While I think it
would be overwrought to say that such an amendment makes this country
a facist dictatorship, it certainly isn't consistent with a country
of freedom.
So sure it would by definition be constitutional to add such a
restriction, but it would be inconsistent with 230 years of national
identity. Which leads to
2 - Amending the constitution on emotional grounds has already caused
enough problems (as
we all know from the 18th and 21st amendments). This is why the
States sensibly failed to ratify the ERA, despite its admirable
objective. But in a time of polarized politics will people make a
decision that they will later regret?
As I noted, both of these are all solidly conservative arguments --
there are plenty of others. On the other hand, "good of the
collective" is not a term I've commonly heard coming from my
conservative colleagues. And _is_ it really good for the community?
Should people worship and respect their country (even in opposition)
or worship easily manipulatable symbols?
-d
PS: if you're a veteran I'm sure you already know that the respectful
way to dispose of a flag is, well, to burn it!
From: "Munro, Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: June 28, 2006 4:55:53 PM EDT
Just a few minor questions;
Given that complaints about the constitutionality of a properly
accomplished constitutional amendment are logically ridiculous (Here's
the short version; The constitution specifically allows the Senate to
forward amendments to the states), then I'd like to ask;
Is the dislike of a flag-burning amendment powered by opposition to
the
amendment's moral claim - that our personal freedom of expression
should
be limited for the good of the collective?
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as [email protected]
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
