Ultron

I've already read that. Again, answer my question:

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

Ultron

Exactly my point. You may have the "right" to eat a cheeseburger but it's not a federally-protected act.

Neilium

If I remember correctly from the Boy Scout Manual (circa 1978), the proper way to dispose of a worn out American flag was to burn it. You couldn't let it touch the ground, throw it in the trash, or display it if it was ripped up. But, hey, torch it once you have a replacement.

So, are the Boy Scouts in danger here, or is it simply (ha ha) a matter of context?

neil(ium)
the noble gas

Ultron

OK show me the legal definition of speech.

I never saw a legal definition of "speech" on the Cornell U. overview he referenced to. I looked elsewhere on that site and didn't find a Cornell dictionary either.

Loren Pechtel

The right to free speech has always been held to end where it poses an immediate danger to others.

This has traditionally been expressed as not including the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless, of course, there really is a fire). People won't go checking for a fire, they'll run. In such a situation people may get hurt.
However, it applies to any speech that poses an immediate danger. A large piece of burning cloth in a building without specific arrangements to ensure it's safe poses a danger. As such, it's prohibited.

The same piece of cloth outside on a non-flammable surface and without people too close by poses no risk and thus is not prohibited.

Ultron

Flag-burning is not a federally-protected Constitutional right if it's not enumerated in the Constitution. That's straight from the 9th.

Loren Pechtel

Besides, flag burning isn't inherently anti-American.

Something I would be tempted to do if I were in Washington: Burn a flag *WHILE WEARING A JOHN ASHCROFT MASK*.

Loren Pechtel

That was your intention but fire doesn't always obey.

You don't have to do actual harm to be punished. Doing an action with an unreasonable risk of harm can be punished even if nobody is hurt.

Consider offenses such as reckless driving and driving under the influence. Also, brandishing a firearm.

There are also a wide variety of offenses involving not having the proper license to do something and most of these involve risk to the public from an untrained individual. The few that don't involve training are for accountability purposes. (Example: Taxicabs. If you have unlicensed cabs who do you complain to about mistreatment?)

Ultron

Sure it is! And your arguements back mine up. Case in point, you said:

Melkor:
"The Constitution ... stacks the deck in favor of as much freedom on the part of the people as possible, and actually specifically limits the powers of the Federal Government and the States, without specifically limiting rights of the people those governments are intended to serve."

So by your own words the Federal Government does not have the power to protect something it does not enumerate.

Actually the govt can outlaw freedoms that are LITERALLY protected by the Constitution, too. Don't believe me? Check out article 5:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"

You can pass an Amendment to repeal a current Amendment or update the Constitution. So literally, even Constitutionally-protected rights that are literally listed/enumerated can be taken away through the Amendment process.

Well considering I'm using the literal words of the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments to back up my points, as well as article 5 of the Constititution, my arguements are pretty rock solid.

Ultron

I respectfully disagree. The judicial review powers aren't Constitutional and most of the Federalists AND anti-Federalists thought judicial review was an unchecked power. Thomas Jefferson, one off the top of my head, said it is a "perversion of law."

The fact is that judicial review was not a power spelled out anywhere in the Constitution. The use of it is therefore unconstitutional.

Think about it. If through this judicial review power the Supreme Court determines the Constitutionality of all laws, then it can change the nature and scope of any law, including Amendments. Remember the judicial branch was originally intended to be the weakest of the three branches of govt, but now that it has given itself the power to interpret Amendments it can also change the one type of law that can be used to change one of their decisions. It is now the strongest branch of govt.

Here's more information on it. I don't want to get sidetracked on this issue. I can barely keep up with all you guys on just the flag-burning issue alone.

Judicial Review:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...le03/13.html#1

Trust me, I already have.

I don't think so. I think right now as it stands, all the far-reaching interpretations of that law, among others, jeapordizes the very letter of the law itself.

I am not opposed to making changes through the legislative process. If there are people who feel so strongly about a right they want to be federally-protected, by all means, I welcome them to act. That's the American way. Hence we have more govt-protected freedoms here than anywhere else in the world.

Believe it or not I agree with you here.

Roger that.