Flag Burning

[Bonnie]

They are. There's just not that many of them. So their voices are easily drowned out.

Yes that's why Hillary is asking for Karl Rove to resign over a remark he made at a dinner party..............

 

[menewa]

Yes that's why Hillary is asking for Karl Rove to resign over a remark he made at a dinner party..............

I was only referring to academia, not the political realm.

 

[Bonnie]

I was only referring to academia, not the political realm.

All's fair in love and politics I guess??

 

[pegwinn]

I didn't read all four pages so if I am repeating, go ahead and sue me. If you burn a flag, I personally believe you should get an ass whipping. If you do it around me, it better be folded. It better be layed on a bed of coals. It better have been unserviceable prior to the above. Or I might have to deliver on that ass whipping.

However, each time we prohibit something that has little or no effect on our way of life, we make it easier to keep it up.

If it was me, I'd write the law so that all US Flags must be made of flameproof material. Problem solved and I didn't need 2/3 majority to do it.

Personally I am far more alarmed at how the USSC just told connecticut residents that the city can take thier homes to build beachfront resorts and offices.

 

[Annie]

I didn't read all four pages so if I am repeating, go ahead and sue me. If you burn a flag, I personally believe you should get an ass whipping. If you do it around me, it better be folded. It better be layed on a bed of coals. It better have been unserviceable prior to the above. Or I might have to deliver on that ass whipping.

However, each time we prohibit something that has little or no effect on our way of life, we make it easier to keep it up.

If it was me, I'd write the law so that all US Flags must be made of flameproof material. Problem solved and I didn't need 2/3 majority to do it.

Personally I am far more alarmed at how the USSC just told connecticut residents that the city can take thier homes to build beachfront resorts and offices.

 

[Bonnie]

pegwinn

Personally I am far more alarmed at how the USSC just told connecticut residents that the city can take thier homes to build beachfront resorts and offices.

I have been reading thru the justices opinions and trying to figure out if their rulings had more to do with kicking this back to the states or if they actually agree that private profit now is the benchmark for losing one's home....Either way it's very troubling!!
Scariest still is that I may actually agree with Sandra Day O'Connor in this one

 

[Annie]

pegwinn



I have been reading thru the justices opinions and trying to figure out if their rulings had more to do with kicking this back to the states or if they actually agree that private profit now is the benchmark for losing one's home....Either way it's very troubling!!

Go to Instapundit.com start reading from the top down. Then cut over to http://volokh.com/ you'll get it!

 

[Bonnie]

Go to Instapundit.com start reading from the top down. Then cut over to http://volokh.com/ you'll get it!

Hmm still very troubling, and so now the state of Connecticut will be the precedent case that will start an avalanche of private property snatchings.

 

[Bonnie]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108
Kathianne
For your reading enjoyment.......I hope your good with legalise.. Long but worth it

 

[Annie]

Hmm still very troubling, and so now the state of Connecticut will be the precedent case that will start an avalanche of private property snatchings.

Oh I agree, very dangerous. Still, got to come up with alternatives to constitutional amendments and such. Wrong path.

 

[Bonnie]

Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:

"An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority ... . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean... . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

I

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108#dissent1

 

[Bonnie]

Oh I agree, very dangerous. Still, got to come up with alternatives to constitutional amendments and such. Wrong path.

There is another case of this one town over from me in which business/residences along a main st are in danger of being seized for a health spa. And this area is not even a depressed area in fact it's very quaint, but they can still blight it and take it.

 

[Annie]

There is another case of this one town over from me in which business/residences along a main st are in danger of being seized for a health spa. And this area is not even a depressed area in fact it's very quaint, but they can still blight it and take it.

Yep, but let us remember the Supremes are not infallible, gotta change the make-up. Remember it was SCOTUS that said Dred Scott hadn't standing.

 

[Gunny]

That flag that represents our nation represents the principles and ideals that our nation was founded on, without which the USA wouldn't be the great nation that it is. One of those principles is the right to express yourself. Burning the flag is a mode of expression that I wouldn't ever agree with, but I'll fight for someone's right to freely express him/herself in such a manner. When we start choosing certain exceptions to the rule, we start stripping ourselves of freedoms and liberties protected by the constitution and embodied in the stars and stripes. If you'd like to hit someone with a baseball bat for excercising their God-given and constitutionally protected freedom of expression, then your priorities are severely out of whack.

When you stretch "freedom of expression" to symbolically burning this Nation to the ground, you've stretched it too far. And I DO consider that the Constitution gives you the right to burn the symbol of this nation a far stretch, as I mentioned in my first post.

Hey, anybody can do what they want. And I can afford my bail.

 

[pegwinn]

And I can afford my bail.

Well Said

 

[Gabriella84]

Sure, burning the flag is despicable. So is Sean Hannity's radio program.
Unfortunately, both are protected under the Constitutional freedoms of speech and expression.
If we ban flag burning, what is next? Criticism of elected officials? Will we be prohibited from burning pictures of Dubya, or making him the butt of political cartoons?
The American Eagle is as much of a symbol of America as the flag. But we keep eliminating their habitat.
This is just another excuse for Republicans to wrap themselves in the flag and show how "patriotic" they are. But I expect that the effort will die as soon as the lighter fluid and match lobbies descend on Washington with their big pockets.
Heck, I bet the flag makers of America are opposed to this nonsense. Someone has to sell the flags that are burned.

 

[Annie]

Sure, burning the flag is despicable. So is Sean Hannity's radio program.
Unfortunately, both are protected under the Constitutional freedoms of speech and expression.
If we ban flag burning, what is next? Criticism of elected officials? Will we be prohibited from burning pictures of Dubya, or making him the butt of political cartoons?
The American Eagle is as much of a symbol of America as the flag. But we keep eliminating their habitat.
This is just another excuse for Republicans to wrap themselves in the flag and show how "patriotic" they are. But I expect that the effort will die as soon as the lighter fluid and match lobbies descend on Washington with their big pockets.
Heck, I bet the flag makers of America are opposed to this nonsense. Someone has to sell the flags that are burned.

Ya wish to say anything to the few that agee with you? How to win friends and convert enemies? Reach out once in awhile...

 

[Gabriella84]

I am reaching out! The only thing Republicans love and respect more than patriotism is money.

 

[Annie]

I am reaching out! The only thing Republicans love and respect more than patriotism is money.

You lose!

 

[OCA]

I am reaching out! The only thing Republicans love and respect more than patriotism is money.

You must be kidding, think Bill Clinton.

Anyway I want your take on this Gabby, what do you say to the factual charges that the Demos have kept Blacks poor, on welfare and huddled for the most part in inner city ghettoes just for the pure pleasure of having them vote for them every election cycle? I mean Blacks can't survive without that good ol' public assistance that the Demos provide, right?