Adam's Apple
Senior Member
- Apr 25, 2004
- 4,092
- 452
- 48
Thoughtful article about the proposed Flag Amendment to the Constitution.
Confused Discourse
By Paul Greenberg, The Washington Times
July 3, 2006
It happens every few years. Those trying to reverse an old 5-to-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that made flag-burning a constitutional right petition Congress for redress. And every few years, the House approves a constitutional amendment that would protect the flag, and the Senate proceeds to turn it down. But by fewer and fewer votes.
This time the amendment fell only one -- one -- vote short of passage in the Senate. It was another sign that we happy few who began this fight are becoming we happy many.
After all these years, the Flag Amendment itself has become a symbol of American grit and glory, and its advocates aren't about to haul it down.
Those on the other side of the issue tell us the flag is a symbol much like any other, and that disrespecting it is just an expression of opinion, the kind that should be protected by the First Amendment.
These sophisticates keep trying to explain to us yokels out here that burning the flag of the United States isn't action but speech, and therefore should remain a constitutionally protected right. But a lot of Americans, poor naifs that we are, remain under the impression that burning the flag is burning the flag, not making a speech.
Facts are stubborn things, as old John Adams once noted, and We the People can tell the difference between speech and action.
What we have here is a failure to make elemental distinctions in our confused public discourse. Every time that ability fades, the airiest sophistries are wheeled out to fill the vacuum created when reason abdicates. So it was only to be expected that those who oppose protecting the flag would wrap themselves in the First Amendment and contend that an act is just another form of speech.
But it isn't criticizing the flag that some of us propose to ban. Any street corner orator should be able to stand on a soapbox and badmouth the American flag all day long--and apple pie and motherhood, too, if that's his inclination. It's a free country.
It is actually assaulting Old Glory, it's defacing the Stars and Stripes, it's an act, the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, that ought to be against the law, just as it once was. The Flag Amendment would ban an indecent act, not an exercise of free speech.
for full article:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060702-102211-9729.r.htm
Confused Discourse
By Paul Greenberg, The Washington Times
July 3, 2006
It happens every few years. Those trying to reverse an old 5-to-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that made flag-burning a constitutional right petition Congress for redress. And every few years, the House approves a constitutional amendment that would protect the flag, and the Senate proceeds to turn it down. But by fewer and fewer votes.
This time the amendment fell only one -- one -- vote short of passage in the Senate. It was another sign that we happy few who began this fight are becoming we happy many.
After all these years, the Flag Amendment itself has become a symbol of American grit and glory, and its advocates aren't about to haul it down.
Those on the other side of the issue tell us the flag is a symbol much like any other, and that disrespecting it is just an expression of opinion, the kind that should be protected by the First Amendment.
These sophisticates keep trying to explain to us yokels out here that burning the flag of the United States isn't action but speech, and therefore should remain a constitutionally protected right. But a lot of Americans, poor naifs that we are, remain under the impression that burning the flag is burning the flag, not making a speech.
Facts are stubborn things, as old John Adams once noted, and We the People can tell the difference between speech and action.
What we have here is a failure to make elemental distinctions in our confused public discourse. Every time that ability fades, the airiest sophistries are wheeled out to fill the vacuum created when reason abdicates. So it was only to be expected that those who oppose protecting the flag would wrap themselves in the First Amendment and contend that an act is just another form of speech.
But it isn't criticizing the flag that some of us propose to ban. Any street corner orator should be able to stand on a soapbox and badmouth the American flag all day long--and apple pie and motherhood, too, if that's his inclination. It's a free country.
It is actually assaulting Old Glory, it's defacing the Stars and Stripes, it's an act, the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, that ought to be against the law, just as it once was. The Flag Amendment would ban an indecent act, not an exercise of free speech.
for full article:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060702-102211-9729.r.htm
