Speechless...

[Jon P. Inghram]

Ok, freespeechless: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050622/D8ASREC00.html

Looks like we're headed inevitably towards a fascist-socialist state where the government which is controlled by business runs everyones lives.

[az]

Didn't you see that coming? After 9/11, governments all over the western world (ours included) made sure to cut citizens' rights very very quickly, as long as everybody is in shock, all under the cover of security.

AZ

[Gurm]

Ahh keep your pants on. It has to pass the senate first, and why do I see the Supreme Court bitch-slapping congress on this ... AGAIN?

[Dr Mordrid]

1. this has been coming since long before 9/11, and according to most polls it's had broad public support going back just as far.

2. yes, it passed the House and FYI it looks like it'll pass the Senate as well, though by a smaller margin.

3. unlike previous efforts which were just laws passed by Congress and signed by the President this time it's a constitutional amendment.

As such the Supreme Court cannot rule on it being "constitutional" since it'll become part of the Constitution. The courts can only enforce the Constitutions provisions, not rule on if new parts of it are "legal" by previous standards.

Once something's in the Constitution it's the law and that's that until Congress or the States repeal or modify it with another constitutional amendment.

Dr. Mordrid

[Gurm]

My bad, I missed that they were shooting for an amendment (because I never take this very seriously).

Here's the thing. Even if it passes 2/3 in the Senate... it needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. It's running with a 2/3 approval from the house, it MIGHT get 2/3 from the senate, where are they going to drum up the extra support to get 3/4 from the states?

You remember all those blue states from the last election? Yeah, those ones that like free speech and stuff? And you remember how 49% of the popular vote went to Kerry? Yeah... well... the constitution has only been amended 17 times in 220 years. And most of those 17 happened in the first few years.

I don't see it happening.

[Dr Mordrid]

It's easier than you think. Remember that we're not talking about popular vote here but numbers of states.

Given that electoral map getting 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass the amendment is far easier than getting a popular vote of the same margin. This should especially be the case since nearly all of 'em already have laws on the book restricting flag burning. All this will do is ratify their already made judgement.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

Reduce the right to freedom of speech by protecting a piece of cloth that supposedly symbolizes freedom of speech more than anything else.


This is especialy ironic because it will increase flag desecration as protest.

... at this point Chuck's speech degenerates into incoherent curses...

[Dr Mordrid]

'cmon CJ, get creative.

You can still burn flags all you want. In fact it's the preferred method for disposing of a flag that's beyond repair. As such all protesters will have to do is burn old & decrepit flags instead of pretty new ones in the guise of "disposal"

Dr. Mordrid

[Gurm]

Or drop the flag in a nice acid bath first, wait a few minutes, THEN burn it.

[Jessterw]

Well if you accidently dropped said flag on the ground then you'd be obliged to burn it. That'd be the only patriotic thing to do

[cjolley]

'cmon CJ, get creative.

You can still burn flags all you want. In fact it's the preferred method for disposing of a flag that's beyond repair. As such all protesters will have to do is burn old & decrepit flags instead of pretty new ones in the guise of "disposal"

Dr. Mordrid

I said it would increase such protests.

Of course that is not the point.
The point is that the amendment is hipocritical, cheap and chickenshit.

[az]

Why even put something like that into the constitution? I thought this was for important stuff...

AZ

[Dr Mordrid]

This ability to amend the constitution is there to allow for constitutional solutions to new problems (ex: changes in Presidential sucession, direct election of Senators etc.) that cannot be resolved under the current document or to force a solution to deadlocks between the Supreme Court, Congress and the executive branch.

The power to do this is held by the peoples representatives in Congress and the States for obvious reasons. The definition of whats "important" or not is up to them since it's they who will have to stand for re-election by the voters.

Dr. Mordrid

[paulcs]

Amending the First Amendment (in this case to allow Congress to ban previously protected political speech) is unprecedented. In fact, I don't believe the Bill of Rights has ever been amended. Many of us considered the first ten amendments sacrosanct and seemingly immutable. Obviously they're not immutable. Doing it once creates a precedent, and, it seems to me, makes it that much easier to do it again.

Paul

[Gurm]

Amending the First Amendment (in this case to allow Congress to ban previously protected political speech) is unprecedented. In fact, I don't believe the Bill of Rights has ever been amended. Many of us considered the first ten amendments sacrosanct and seemingly immutable. Obviously they're not immutable. Doing it once creates a precedent, and, it seems to me, makes it that much easier to do it again.

Paul

It's called the "slippery slope". It's why I so vehemently opposed Bush's "lookit me I'm religious and I make my decisions based on religion" platform. Because once you let that kind of garbage in even just a LITTLE, it's not long before it gathers momentum.

And what do the religious types like most of all? They like to exercise their own right to free speech - and extinguish EVERYONE ELSE'S. Y'know, kinda like this proposed amendment. *spit*