Brian says:

Why were our forefathers smart enough to allow amendments to our Constitution. Why would adding an amendment to the Constitution be trampling on it? Are you saying that the proposed 28th amendment of burning a flag would limit our 1st amendment which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Lately I’ve seen the 1st amendment trampled on with 100’s of radical judges creating laws that limit the use of the word “God” and limiting the use of free speech, such as prayer, in schools. Any hint of “God” by validictorians in a commencement speech, and suddenly the plug is pulled.

Where do you stand on the 1st amendment Andy? In the Middle? If you are… it sounds like you’re trampling all over it!

gnomic says:

On a related note: Why is it that social Conservatives have to demonize the “liberal” media and “radical” judges? The media and judges are doing exactly what they are supposed to. Well, much of the media is doing a half-ass job of regurgitating press releases, but that’s a different issue.

Now to the topic at hand. Andrew was making a point about how the founding fathers designed the constitution to protect citizens from the abuses of their government. And the federalist papers specifically warn us against the “tyranny of the majority” - that is, the majority forcing its religion upon others. Which is in fact why the first amendment states clearly that the government is not to establish [or endorse through laws] ANY religion.

The social Conservatives - led by that con artist Falwell - have engaged in revisionist history for the last 20 years. Reading the first federalist paper (actually, read them all - its good stuff) shows this movement to be based on a fundamental lie (pun intended). Worse, Jesus did not say “go forth and legislate.” He told his followers to lead by example and Paul wrote to offer the word, but to move on “if the soil is hard.”

Believe what you want. Live how you want. Don’t make me live your values - I enjoy buying beer on Sundays and watching smurf porn on cable.

And for Christ’s sake, quit sticking words in His mouth. He said to love and serve one another, not to tell each other who to marry and how to live.

The laws against prayer in schools prevent students who do not have a choice in being there from being preached to. At home or on the street - you can do whatever you like because my kid and I can walk away.

And no matter what laws are passed, you are free to pray - silently - as much as you like wherever you are - even in school or court.

You aren’t being persecuted, you are just being whiny.

And before you start with the snappy comebacks (rather than praying for me as Jesus would suggest), consider this: Unless this administration is somehow successful at herding 12 million immigrants on to the trains to the camps, in less than a generation the prayers and behaviors you want to make into laws will be those of a Hispanic Catholic culture, not the fundie nonsense so popularly today.

So you reap, so shall you sew…

Brian says:

You and Andy make a weak point. The founding fathers of our country did construct the constitution to protect our citizens from the abuses of their government. But what is government if it’s not a representation of the people?

Our founding fathers noticed that the constitution would need to be amendable and adaptable to changing times and changing values.

When it comes to burning a flag, our society values the importance of the symbol. If our founding fathers actually had a national flag at the time they wrote up the constitution would you be surprised if they wrote something about not burning it up? I wouldn’t.

Now, when it comes to sticking words in someone’s mouth, I have to right to jot down in words what someone else implies… Andy can either denounce my criticism and clear things up if he feels the need to… But sometimes a non-rebuttal just serves as a confirmation.

Now getting on to prayer gnomic… When someone is asked to deliver a commencement speech, should there be a limit to what is said? When singing the national anthem, should the song be edited? While it’s obvious that no school can prohibit someone from praying silently to their God, it’s also obvious that praying to their God in school isn’t tolerated.

See how amendments to our constitution are sometimes a no-brainer like this one…

And for kickers, Andy notes that there is only one amendment that limits the powers of the people. I can add two more. The 1st amendment allows free-speech, but at the same time it doesn’t allow slander. Another fine example is the 2nd amendment which allows for the freedom to own guns, but at the same time it doesn’t allow for someone to be carrying around a nuclear weapon or a grenade-launcher.

gnomic says:

If you were to read the first and second amendments, you will not find any mention of slander (or libel), nor will you find any mention of a limitation on the type of gun. These limitations are the creation of “radical judges” who interpreted the intent of the constitution and the law and effectively legislated from the bench.

BTW, you can find and read the constitution and other important documents here (should you actually want to read them rather than have someone else tell you what they want you to believe they say): http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/FoundingDocuments/index.shtml

If you were to read The Federalist Papers (here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm_) and actually see the words the founding fathers wrote, you might not be so quick to put the words of narrow-minded revisionists of history in the mouths of the founding fathers.

The American Republic’s democracy was not designed to cater to the whims of the majority, it was designed to protect the rights of minorities and to serve the people, not to control them. Or as HAMILTON OR MADISON put it in their own words:

There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.

In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. — The Federalist Papers : No. 51

In simpler terms, the founding fathers were doing everything possible to prevent any one groups view being forced upon others any more than minimally necessary to ensure the safety and security of the Republic.

The republic is not threatened by prayer in school any more than it is by “in God we trust” on our coinage. Small, narrow-minded people and political parties are simply using this nonsense to extort cash and avoid dealing with real problems like a never-ending war serviced by no-bid war profiters, an exploding deficit, not recovering from disasters after spending billions to do so, promises made and debts owed to an aging population, declining access to medical care for workers and dead millionaires kids not getting all the money.

But lets not forget that protecting a symbol from a nonexistent rampage of flag-burning is more important that dealing with real problems.

The symbol will endure as long as we uphold the promise of a just Republic. Once we embrace tyranny, fail to respect the rule of law, and our government fails to serve its citizens, it won’t matter a bit if the symbol is protected for it will stand for nothing.

Oh shit.

MrLumberjack says:

Of course you won’t find any mention of nuclear weapons in the 2nd amendment when you read the words. There was no such thing as nukes at the time! But when you actually read and interpret, as our courts do thousands of times over the course of each year, you do get many legal interpretations that legally alter the constitution.

From your train of thought, we ought to add plenty of wordings to the actual 1st and 2nd amendments to cover our asses. Abortion is currently protected under the constitution as a freedom of speech, but wait… why don’t I see the word “Abortion” in the specific wording of our 1st amendment? It’s because of court interpretations! Ever wonder why lawyers point out this case and that case when arguing in court. So, in reality, our Constitution isn’t limited to the specific words of the original document, you’ll need to look at the Constitution and its many legally documented interpretations.

You and I differ on “service” and “control”. It’s silly to think that our government shouldn’t control us and that control is bad. Controls such as: “Environmental Standards”, “Mileage Standards”, “Air Bags”, “SEC Regulations”, “Minimum Wage”, and umpteen million other controls, all seem to be necessary and needed. Not a single thing I mentioned above is a government service. Government services would be something like “Social Security”, “Public School”, “Medicare”, and so on. So I would think that you just got debunked with your “Government shouldn’t control us” theory.

Now getting back on topic… Our flag… and the burning of it… This is again a question of Free Speech. As I stated before we all have the right of freedom of speech, but is it limitless? Nope. And not according to our Constitution as it has been interpreted. Slandering isn’t a freedom we have, and when it comes to burning the flag for purposes of slander. Although slander is already protected, there have been interpretations that don’t protect our flag from a fire, so specifically adding words through an amendment just seems like the right thing to do.

Randy says:

A great article, it is very much appreciated. The constitution is everything to our freedowS. If you are willing to open your eyes to some REALITIES that exist in front of you without you knowing. Do some research. The emancipation proclamation is the start of the loss of our many freedoms. You need to look at this website: http://www.usofavus.com and start reading, you will be blown away. Not sure what to believe. Make your decision based on your own due diligence.

Bob Francis says:

Andrew, Nice artical! Couldn’t agree with you more.
I thought this “problem” was setteled eons ago, William Tell, a childs story, remember?
Quess to our extreme right legislators, thats more liberal press.

Keep up the good work

Bob

gnomic says:

What, exactly, is the harm done by burning a flag? It offends you - does this cause some sort of physical harm that you are too fragile to recover from? IF this act is prohibited, are you somehow safer - there is no other way that someone could find to offend you - perhaps putting a religious icon in a bottle of piss and calling it art? Hmm, the need for another amendment. OR perhaps we should simply amend the Constitution so that the government can decide what we should and should not see, say, do, or think.

Here a thought: You are free choose to rant and rave or to burn the ignore people who are stupid enough to burn the flag. Its a good way to sort out the idiots from the rest of the population.

Here’s an idea: if you don’t like a behavior, don’t do it and don’t associate with people that do. But unless it causes you physical or financial injury, GROW UP AND MOVE ON.

True Conservatives want the government out of our lives, not making choices for us.

MrLumberjack says:

What’s the harm of walking around nude in public?
What’s the harm with calling in a bomb-threat at a local school?
What the harm with yelling fire in a crowded room?
What’s the harm with someone saying that you raped someone when you didn’t?

When you think about it, each of these questions has an answer. When it comes to burning our flag, there’s an answer to that question too.

And when you say that True Conservatives want government out of our lives… That’s not exactly true even if one were an extremist righty. Conservatives see the need for government just as Liberals do. Conservatives want to keep government limited. Voting for political office is simply a way of sending someone else to make choices for us because that’s what government does. What you’re thinking of is the Anarchist.

gnomic says:

MrLumberjack,

can’t argue with that logic.