Melkor

That's not what that means at all... in fact, quite the opposite. The government in fact has an obligation to protect our rights, and NOT just those ennumerated.The process by which the Constitution can be amended is not in question here. The only way for a state or for the federal gov't to make a law banning flag defacement, however, and not have it shot down as unconstitutional eventually, is if they were to make an amendment specifically addressing the issue. THAT is why some are attempting to amend the Constitution to make flag defacement illegal.

My point was, if it isn't unconstitutional already to ban flag defacement, there isn't any point in going through all the trouble to make a constitutional amendment to accomplish that... however, it IS unconstitutional, so an amendment is necessary if the anti-flag burning crowd wants to get their way.You have a most unique and unusual way of reading the Constitution.

Look at it this way. I DO in fact have a right to wear blue shirts.

I have a right to privacy.

I have a right to do pretty much anything I please, as long as I do not recklessly endanger others, and as long as I harm no one else.

As the saying goes, my right to swing my fist ends where someone else's nose begins.

The Constitution specifically ennumerates some rights that our country's founders thought particularly important.

However, the Ninth Amendment states that just because they listed some specifically, does not mean that our rights are limited to just those few.

In short, if you want to pass a law banning something that essentially harms no one else (which is a power of government), if it is not specifically listed as a power, you're S.O.L. unless you amend the Constitution to allow this particular latitude.

I can continue to re-state the Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendments for you to demonstrate the issue at hand here, but that would be redundant, and you're obviously mis-reading them anyway. I don't know of any simpler ways of conveying that concept at this point... can anyone help me out in explaining this here?

Ultron

I disagree. I think this is a good intelligent discussion.

I never claimed anything like that. I just disagree with you on some things. I bet you and I agree on more than you might think.

Don't take my disagreement personally. Wouldn't life be boring if everyone agreed on everything?

Melkor

Well, given this discussion as a starting point, and given that you apparently think that the government can pretty much do anything it wants unless strictly forbidden verbatim by the Constitution (pretty much the attitude most of Congress has nowadays), I seriously doubt that.

On pretty much all issues (there are one or two rather minor exceptions), I'm a Libertarian... I'm kind of gathering that you are in fact quite the opposite.

No offense.

Melkor

BTW, I don't mean to sound like a complete asshole or anything... I just get frustrated when I feel like I'm not speaking in a mutually understood language at times...

Ultron

I understand _your_ point. But just because it's legal doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Again I ask you the same question for a third time:

Where in the definition of speech does the word "image" appear?

You can give me a legal definition if you like, but I have never seen the Supreme Court give an official definition of speech. They HAVE given a three point definition of obscenity, for example.

All I know is that in EVERY, and I mean EVERY definition I find, speech is not defined as an image, or an act of flag burning, or even symbolic expression.

Again I challenge you to find me even a legal definition that defines speech as literally an image.

Common sense would certainly show that speech is not an image. I certainly understand the arguement that symbolic expression can be an image or a burning flag. I just disagree that our judicial system should forsake literal interpretation for implied interpretation. I think it's wrong no matter which way the pendelum swings.

I understand case law. And I've been through the ACLU site before. That is not MY point. I am here to argue MY point of view. Not someone else's hehe.

Ultron

And I'm not arguing that, either.

Ultron

Well if it's an image of a flag, it's not a flag. So the image would be just fine. I'm just being literal here.

The American flag doesn't have green stripes, so burn away!

You do it SO well! :notworthy

Ultron

I think that as long as it's not threatening or libelous speech it should be federally protected. I'm in agreement with the First Amendment. I just think we need to take the letter of the law literally, and if new rights need to be federally protected, then by all means the people need to get out there and vote to protect their rights!

Melkor

I am at a loss as to where I should even begin with this.

Seriously. I don't have the words to express how screwed up that is.

EDIT:

Okay, here's my attempt.

Common sense would certainly show that the First Amendment specifically protects both the oral and written word... I fail to see how any symbolic communication could NOT be interpreted as one or the other.

Written words themselves, are really only a symbolic form of communication. It's not just a "literal" interpretation you're looking for, but a non-sensical, utterly inflexible, counter-intuitive one!

If all courts determined decisions based on your criteria, we'd be living in a police state.

Wait, we already are.


Seriously man.... what state and what district do you represent? You sound like the "pass any law we can get away with" type that currently makes up most of the US legislative branch.

And frankly, that is what has led us to the morass of ridiculous, patently unconstitutional laws we have right now in the US.

As for the Judicial branch being too powerful.... I can't possibly see how. They don't wield that power. The Judicial branch, if anything, has been the biggest failure in the balance of power and in checks and balances as a whole. If the courts were doing their job, most of this mess would be knocked down before the ink is even dry on most of the crap that comes out of the other two branches.

Ultron

OK fair enough, I'll retract that scenario then. You're arguement is that even though there isn't an intent to do harm, the action is risky enough to where it is more than symbolic expression.

Can you at least agree with me that speech is not LITERALLY imagery or flag-burning?

Hehe good point. So someone can't easily claim that firing wildly in the street is JUST symbolic expression. Got it.

Ok fair enough.

Ok so in the very least you and I agree that even the First Amendment (however we disagree on what that entails) is not an absolute right. Correct?