Want to hear about DSM, but have one question about Flag burning

[jobycom]

Here's the proposed amendment:

"The Congress and the States shall have Power to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States."

Okay, so say Congress does pass such a law, and I violate it (because I will, just because it's an illegal law), and it goes to court.

I would argue that the law passed by Congress still violates my First Amendment rights. Here's the First Amendment, for those who may not have it emblazoned across their consciousness:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So the law Congress passes would violate the First Amendment, even though it would seem to be allowed by the new amendment. I could argue that the new Amendment doesn't specifically say that the first amendment doesn't apply, and that my intent was to express myself, not to "physically desecrate the flag."

Seems to me that the proposed Amendment is useless, and would not be able to permit COngress to halt flag burning as a means of speech. It is not specific enough.

Anyone else think that?

[tk2kewl]

1. i would suppose the new amendment would need to explicitly state

that it overrides the 1st amendment in cases of flag desecration

[jobycom]

2. That's my thought. And it wouldn't, unless they've changed it.

Maybe we're wasting time on this battle.

[tk2kewl]

3. I think they know it can't fly in the senate

they want a distraction and wedge issue to try to paint dems a America haters

[NorCalDem]

4. BINGO!!!!