So the “no flag burning” amendment is all the rage. Bolstered by less than stellar polls, I’m sure, Republicans are pushing the issue to “protect” our flag. Had you told me about this a year ago, I would’ve jumped for joy. Nothing burns me more than someone burning a flag. But it seems my “rah rah” has rah’ed itself out. This amendment just stinks.
I don’t like flag-burning, and I would love to beat on people when I see them burning once, which is exactly why I think it needs to be protected.
When the first amendment was passed, the intention was clear. It was passed in order to protect even the most heinous speech that could ever be uttered. In doing so, the founding fathers established a country that people could feel free to criticize, desecrate, and flagrantly insult at their own whim. In fact, the idea was to protect even the most agregious speech because oftentimes it is exactly that form of speech that is targeted by the so-called “speech police.”
What’s the point of protecting speech if we assume that speech only includes that speech which we agree with?
If given the chance, I would absolutely vote against this flagrant attempt to “rally the troops” at the cost of the Constitution. I know it’s an amendment, and I know it would be the Constitution and therefore could not “cost” the Constitution anything. However, something that runs clearly counter to the intent of the Constitution whether it’s a law or a proposed amendment must be defeated at all costs.
The Constitution cannot be amended to merely allow “certain kinds” of speech and outlaw others. In some ways, in order to protect it the way we expect judges and other politicians to protect it, we must also protect the ideas behind it.
This amendment must be defeated so soundly that it’s never brought up again, and any “small government” Republicans (if there are any at all anymore).