Flag burning amendment

[revprez]

Sure.

 

I said show us the fallacy, not define it. That would be where you take my remarks and demonstrate formally that they are fallacious.

 

Rev Prez

[swansont]

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The Courts have already ruled that flag desecration in general is protected speech; what makes you think they'll read this amendment more broadly than necessary?

 

Rev Prez

 

 

The new amendment will make that ruling moot. Would laws described by any of the scenarios I describe be unconstitutional under the proposed amendment? A physical act that desecrates the flag?

[swansont]

There have been over ten thousand attempts to amend the Constitution. Less than thirty have succeeded. So what do you have besides rationalization?

 

By citing such a statistic, you appear to be assuming that all amendments have equal probabilities of passage.

[Douglas]

Do any of those other initiatives have a constituency comparable to that behind the flag amendment?

 

Rev Prez

yes, the flag is a symbol, burning the flag is an affront to some people, not all people. Banners or symbols like the swastika or the star of David or the hammer and sickle may be offensive and insulting to some people not all people.

 

I would prefer to see an amendment to the constitution stating that ENGLISH IS THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE.

[revprez]

By citing such a statistic, you appear to be assuming that all amendments have equal probabilities of passage.

 

No, I don't. I cite the statistic to point out that there isn't a shred of evidence for ecoli's model of the amendment process.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

I would prefer to see an amendment to the constitution stating that ENGLISH IS THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE.

 

You probably wouldn't need such an amendment. Congress is empowered by its appropriation authority, the Commerce clause and the 14th Amendment to impose a national language.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

The new amendment will make that ruling moot.

 

Insofar as physical desecretation is concerned. If the Courts viewed that Congress could make any law with respect to the American flag, then the amendment is superfluous.

 

Would laws described by any of the scenarios I describe be unconstitutional under the proposed amendment?

 

Two things need to happen. Congress actually needs to pass law saying that such and such is "physical descretation" and therefore prohibited, and the Courts would have to find the article in question to actually be a flag, each to be "physical descretation of the flag" and ensure that the law passes muster against other constitutional protections (from "cruel and unusual punishment," "depriv[ation] of life, liberty or property without due process of the law"). In short, I don't think Congress will ever federalize the prosecution of people who display the flag incorrectly or fold it wrong and I sincerely doubt the Courts--which are jealous of the power to find facts--will decide in favor of public law that describes "failure to salute the flag" as physical desecration.

 

Rev Prez

[atinymonkey]

I said show us the fallacy' date=' not define it. That would be where you take my remarks and demonstrate [i']formally[/i] that they are fallacious.

Plurium interrogationum. You'll not accept the fallacy no matter how it's presented. It's not my problem than you presented an amphiboly in your request for clarification. You asked, to my mind, for a definition and not an explanation.

 

However, taking the request at face value, here you go: -

 

Ecoli stated - 'it's easier to limit freedoms if you do it gradually, sneak in amendments and convince people there good'

 

You refuted this with a statement based on inconsitant prior performance - 'there have been over ten thousand attempts to amend the Constitution. Less than thirty have succeeded'

 

Your point references a specific aspect of historical constitutional change, whereas Ecoli was not specifically referencing the past process. It would not matter if there were thirty or three hundred prior successful attempts at amending the constitution, as past performance is not indication of future performance.

 

I hope that clarifies for you. I'm sure you have a thrilling counterpoint, but please feel free just to suck up the criticism and move on.

 

I would prefer to see an amendment to the constitution stating that ENGLISH IS THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE.

Yes, I've seen people comment on that before. Perhaps it would mean you'd have to start writing English, instead of American English

[Douglas]

You probably wouldn't need such an amendment. Congress is empowered by its appropriation authority' date=' the Commerce clause and the 14th Amendment to impose a national language.

 

Rev Prez[/quote']I believe we need this amendment before the PC folks require a dozen different languages in our schools.

 

97th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. R. 72

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

April 27, 1981

 

Mr. Hayakawa introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

 

JOINT RESOLUTION

 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States establishing English as the official language of the United States.

 

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/ela97.htm

[swansont]

IIn short' date=' I don't think Congress will ever federalize the prosecution of people who display the flag incorrectly or fold it wrong and I sincerely doubt the Courts--which are jealous of the power to find facts--will decide in favor of public law that describes "failure to salute the flag" as physical desecration.

[/quote']

 

I would rather have the express right, than rely on the "good sense" of Congress and the courts.

[alibabba]

Amendments banning flag burning have passed the House three times since SCOTUS ruled it constitutionally protected free speech. They've always been shot down in the Senate. Stupid as this is, there's really nothing to worry about. Even if it somehow miraculously passes the Senate and is signed by bush, there's no way it will pass the 3/4ths of state legislatures required to become part of the Constitution.

 

I don't think the President signs a Constitutional Aamendment.

[jdurg]

I personally think it's a waste of our time and money to propose an Amendment such as the one described in this thread. I also feel that the U.S. Constitution is not really valid in terms of modern times. It was written and ratified in an era which is VASTLY different than current society, and it contains numerous flaws and issues which simply do not apply to society today. Really, I think the entire thing should just be scrapped and a new one written with modern society in mind.

[swansont]

I personally think it's a waste of our time and money to propose an Amendment such as the one described in this thread. I also feel that the U.S. Constitution is not really valid in terms of modern times. It was written and ratified in an era which is VASTLY different than current society, and it contains numerous flaws and issues which simply do not apply to society today. Really, I think the entire thing should just be scrapped and a new one written with modern society in mind.

 

I am of a differing opinion. While one or two items are outdated (is the government tempted to start quartering soldiers in our homes?) the bulk of it was written with the injustices that caused the revolution fresh in the framers' minds. Because of the many who came to the "new world" to escape being an oppressed minority, they had minority rights very much on their minds. I think this amendment, and others being discussed these days, only goes to show that the "majority rules" aspect is what people are considering, and in many ways the US is turning into a similar kind of place the framers left in the first place. They recognized that democracy is only half the equation, because it won't work when you have four wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch (to paraphrase Larry Flynt)

 

There's way too much of "most of America wants this" lately without the recognition that maybe the ones that don't want it should be listened to.

[Mokele]

There's way too much of "most of America wants this" lately without the recognition that maybe the ones that don't want it should be listened to.

 

Hear, hear!

[revprez]

You'll not accept the fallacy no matter how it's presented.

 

Prove it.

 

Ecoli stated...

 

Blah, blah, blah. Let's see you write it out formally. You can start by showing us the "is ought" only you seem to see.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

I believe we need this amendment before the PC folks require a dozen different languages in our schools.

 

If the "PC folks" have the votes to impose multilinguism, then we don't have the votes to pass an amendment.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

I would rather have the express right, than rely on the "good sense" of Congress and the courts.

 

And that differs from now how?

 

Rev Prez

[swansont]

And that differs from now how?

 

Rev Prez

 

 

There isn't an amendment expressly exempting this particular form of expression.

[alibabba]

I personally think it's a waste of our time and money to propose an Amendment such as the one described in this thread. I also feel that the U.S. Constitution is not really valid in terms of modern times. It was written and ratified in an era which is VASTLY different than current society, and it contains numerous flaws and issues which simply do not apply to society today. Really, I think the entire thing should just be scrapped and a new one written with modern society in mind.

 

Well don't you think that that is what the framers had in mind when they provided for the amendment process?

 

We could change it to suit modern times whenever 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states agree that it should be changed.

 

Actually, if that is too cumbersome, then we could amend the amendment process itself, calling for, perhaps, a simple majority in congress and a majority of the states for ratification.

 

I don't think I would trust any group of politicians to rewrite our Constitution, particularly in today's partician atmosphere.

[atinymonkey]

Prove it.

O_o that's....rather childish.

 

Blah, blah, blah. Let's see you write it out formally.

If you can't summon up the effort to make any form of rebuttle above the inane, I'm afraid I'll have to take it that you don't have one.

 

You can start by showing us the "is ought" only you seem to see.

Ok, you can see an "is ought" floating around disjointedly in my posts. While I'm sure you can perceive it somewhere, I can pretty much guarantee it's something only you can see.

 

Apart from you being unable to gauge the views of the entire forum on your fallacy, it is untrue that my opinion is unsupported. In fact, you seem to have a dearth of empathy to any view opposing your own. That aside, I really don't see why you would continue to foister the burden of proof onto me. It was your statement, you justify it.

 

You are causing me concern now. It's not quite normal for someone to disagree with so many members, in so many threads, during such a short timescale. If the community offends you, I don't see why you would seek it out.

[revprez]

There isn't an amendment expressly exempting this particular form of expression.

 

Do you mean that there isn't an amendment expressly prohibiting flag desecration? Well, this amendment doesn't expressly prohibit failing to salute the flag or folding it the wrong way. So what's the problem?

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

If you can't summon up the effort...

 

Swing and a miss.

 

Ok, you can see an "is ought" floating around disjointedly in my posts.

 

Who cares about your posts? I asked you to explicitly show us why it is fallacious to rebut a claim that it is restricting freedoms by passing amendments is easy when the evidence indisputably demonstrates that passing amendments is hard.

 

[quoet]...it is untrue that my opinion is unsupported.

 

Opinion on what? Oh well, it probably is unsupported.

 

In fact, you seem to have a dearth of empathy to any view opposing your own.

 

I have a lack of empathy particularly for your views, but that's neither here or now. Show us the fallacy or be done with it.

 

Rev Prez

[swansont]

Do you mean that there isn't an amendment expressly prohibiting flag desecration? Well' date=' this amendment doesn't expressly prohibit failing to salute the flag or folding it the wrong way. So what's the problem?

 

Rev Prez[/quote']

 

 

There's only so much obtuse behavior (deliberate or no, it matters not) I can subject myself to, so I'm outta here...

[DQW]

I asked you to explicitly show us why it is fallacious to rebut a claim that it is restricting freedoms by passing amendments is easy when the evidence indisputably demonstrates that passing amendments is hard[/i'].

(i)The claim made was not what you state above, but rather that restricting freedoms by passing certain amendments is easier once a precedent of this nature has been set. Your statistic does not address this point in any way.

 

(ii) Even were the claim what you claim it to be, you have not established a standard (can one ?) for the ease of amending the constitution, with respect to which you can use the cited success rate to demonstrate the historical ease or hardness of the process.

 

I may think that twice in a hundred thousand is once too easy...

[In My Memory]

YT2095,

 

wouldn`t passing such an act actualy Incite people to burn flags just out of defiance?

I can just see it now, many people will say flag burning isnt an edipidemic in America, that it is so rare that we dont need such an amendment. Then, when people start burning their flags to protest this amendment, we'll hear from Fox News "see, we told you we needed this amendment, look how many people burn their flags!".