Burn, baby, burn
Writing by treason on Wednesday, 28 of June , 2006 at 1:38 pm
“The Supreme Court got it wrong in 1989 and 1990, when it struck down first a state law and then a federal law banning flag-burning. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, not freedom of ‘expression’; and burning a flag is no more speech than nude dancing, public urination, or a barroom brawl — although each of these things may express people’s thoughts and feelings.
A constitutional amendment would not be our first choice for a response to the Court’s mistake. A statute to remove the issue from the federal courts, and thus restore state autonomy on the issue, would correct the error without requiring the Constitution to take notice of it. But the arguments against an amendment are weak, and their weaknesses help to make the case for it…
…The opponents are right to say that there is no epidemic of burnt flags in this country. There is, however, an epidemic of judicial high-handedness. Some years ago Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law School classed the flag-burning amendment and other proposed amendments designed to remedy errant decisions of the Supreme Court as examples of ‘mutiny’ against its ‘authority.’ It is precisely the defiance the amendment represents — a defiance on behalf of self-government — that recommends it to us.”
– The Editors at “National Review Online,” June 27, 2006
I read this article yesterday on NRO, and there’s more to it than what has been pasted here. As usual, the able staff of NR has presented a thoughtful, well-balanced argument point by point, and as a faithful subscriber I should agree with every word.
And I do agree with their argument; however, I still don’t want flag-burning banned in this country. Humans need to be able to exercise certain freedoms in order for the rest of us to be reminded of how abhorrent they are. Spitting on someone’s grave, raping an infant or eighty year-old nun, stealing candy from a baby, yanking the gold chain off a little girl’s neck, selling your kids south of the border - all those things that can get you a Loogy Award from The V.O.T. Some people look at a flag and see a piece of cloth; others see a symbol but see only a symbol and nothing else. A lot of us see something more. Like the editors at NRO point out:
“…And the flag does not stand simply for an abstract concept of freedom from which a right to burn it can be derived. It stands for a freedom-loving country.”
But they continue:
“…a country that has always allowed the public to take departures from pure libertarianism, to decide that certain exercises of liberty have too little value to deserve protection.”
Well put. But I’m still against a ban. I want Americans to be able to torch a flag whenever and wherever they please. I can’t describe the feeling I get when I see mobs igniting the flag of Denmark or Israel. Do I live in Israel or Denmark? No, but when I see flames licking at the Star of David or the white cross on the “Dannebrog,” I feel I do.
I can’t imagine a time will come when I’ll set fire to Old Glory. But I do know if that time comes, it will have significance. However, if I burn the Stars and Stripes and no one reacts, the significance of that will be much, much greater.
That is the day I dread.
Category: Uncategorized
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Digg -
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
