The House of Representatives voted to amend the Constitution. In particular, it's the First Amendment congressmen find wanting. The third clause within the first sentence of the Bill of Rights, the one that prevents Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech," forbids the same legislators who voted for this Constitutional amendment from passing a general law outlawing flag-burning. Thus, various politicians, with motives as pure as Detroit snow, have pushed this amendment empowering Congress to make flag desecration a federal offense. Flag burning is offensive, but not as offensive as this amendment.

Absolutely right. These Republicans make me sick.

I only support the burning of flags on private property. I don't want some douche setting my streets ablaze because he's full of self hatred and opposes the system that gives him the right to do such a moronic and foul thing.

Burning the flag hardly counts as protected "speech", Mr. Flynn, because it doesn't involve words. No 1st amendment protection here. But the 10th bars the fed. gov't from outlawing it anyway.

This is just one more example of republicans kissing up to the Red people, while avoiding doing anything about the issues that caused the Red people to vote for them in the first place.

There are a lot of things Mr. Short, which do not contain 'speech', but with do carry a political message. Its the right to express ones views that is protected, it hardly matter if its someone screaming, writing or am illiterate deaf mute setting a flag on fire. The message is the message, not the words or lack of them employed to express it. I am sorry you can't understand that.

Why is it illegal to expose yourself in public? It doesn't harm anyone else, it's just offensive to some people (read uptight GOP). Seems like this type of "speech" should be protected too.

Personally, I despise people who do this (I'll punch them in the face like JFKerry) but I believe they should have the "freedom" to do it.

Anything that one human being does in the presence of another has (or can have) a "meaning" and is an "expression." So according to your view, Mr. Kagehi, the government can make illegal only those things we do when no one else is around.

Some political "speech" are all ready trod upon by public urination laws. I think the action connected to these laws is even a bit more "expressive" than burning a flag. Public defecation laws also tred upon our "self expression". But they don't.

When Swift wanted to protest the British policy in Ireland, did he urinate, defecate, burn anything or stage a die-in or dance around like a fool? What did he do? He wrote one of the most memorable political satires, that most literate people can recall. That took intelligence (and is more about speech). Any moron can burn a flag.

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Flynn, but you do not tread on an old amendment by passing a new one. You clarify. Amendments canot be said to be bound by previous amendments, otherwise the 19th amendment trods on rights States retained by the 10th amendment. And just like in that case Congress could pass no general law, in violation of the 10th, it could--and did, pass an amendment.

Well Short, given their tendency to apply arbitrary assumptions about such things to making law, it couldn't hurt for them to be disallowed the right to impose such matter or 'either'. But seriously, there is a difference between making a statement, and just doing something for the hell of it too. Indecency laws, as with ones directed against vandalism, etc. should consider the public good, not the political good. And when considering the public good, they shouldn't be arbitrarilly imposed by assuming harm, but by proving it. Public nudity isn't harmful, exposing yourself... that might be statement, if the statement is, "Why should my government not allow me to go nude", however, if that where the case, it would involve the removal of 'all' clothing, not the flashing of yourself to passerbys. Does it do harm anyway? Not really, its just wierd. Public defication on the other hand can be a health hazzard, so valid justification exists. BTW, the CDC doesn't agree that health risks exist with nudity and would, if allowed to be honest, probably class peeing in public as a risk only for the time it took for UV radiation to kill anything in it. This makes doing so in a park probably less of a problem than a subway, for example.

Point is, "You shouldn't burn flags", is only valid as a) a political issue, b) dangerous if you do it in say a firework factory, c) causes no financial harm, unless its someone else's flag, etc. There is therefor no valid justification for such a law, save for the imposition of one groups opinion about the sacredness (which is sacreligious) or importance of the item in question. I could also set a penny on the ground, capitol building up, then melt it with a blow torch. Why exactly is the flag more protected? Because some people think that the right to burn it is as bad, if not worse than burning a Bible 'period'. They are welcome to that opinion, but that's all it is, without some substantiatable hazard to base it on.

Guess what? Most of the constitution involves specifically denying the right of the government to impose any restriction that is based solely on some other idiots opinion and not on substantive grounds.

Kagehi: Your argument now seems to be that such laws aren't justified. OK. Maybe I agree, it doesn't matter. There are a lot of unjustifiable laws that would be perfectly constitutional, and burning crap isn't speech. That's whay I think Flynn and you are wrong about.

Constitutional or not this amendment is a totally unjustifiable assault on our freedoms.

So..If I create the People's Party Against Cloths (P-PAC)(clothes represent a major part of class struggle and should be outlawed) and have nude demonstrations (non-violent march to city hall) then I'm protected under "political speech". But if I walk from the nudist camp to city hall without a "political" message then I would be arrested. Same action, different standard.

So as long as the "speech" (action) is political in nature and doesn't harm or violate someone’s property rights then you will support there right to do it.