1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Flag Burning Amendment

Discussion in 'The OT' started by cdru, Jun 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jul 6, 2005 #181 of 193
    Timco

    Timco Woof! DBSTalk Gold Club

    963
    0
    Jun 7, 2002
    Congress could always amend the Constitution. If the decision is so grievous, something could always be done. There are no absolutes.
     
  2. Jul 6, 2005 #182 of 193
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    And then the Court would have the ultimate authority to "define" what that ammendment means.
     
  3. Jul 6, 2005 #183 of 193
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    And then the Court would have the ultimate authority to "define" what that ammendment means.

    Only if it was so broadly written as to mean many things. Or are you trying to say that SCOTUS can "interpret" the constitution so flexibly as to make Prohibition the law again, etc?

    Again, the court's power is entirely dependent upon the PRIOR actions of the other bodies of government. That is pretty limiting, but obviously is too much power in your opinion.
     
  4. Jul 6, 2005 #184 of 193
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    What would stop them?
     
  5. Jul 6, 2005 #185 of 193
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    What stops the President from using the military to sieze all power?

    What stops Congress from kicking out the President and Vice president for no reason (trumped up high crimes and misdemeanors) and putting the Speaker in power and then taking over everything?

    You've jumped into the land of the absurd now.
     
  6. Jul 6, 2005 #186 of 193
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    What would stop the USSC from making such an absurd decision? I would argue that the decision in Roe v. Wade, which made it illegal for states to protect unborn children falls into that category.

    If the military is motivated to seize power, then we have Civil War, the President cannot do it alone, however, he needs to convince enough of the military that it is necessary.

    In order to impeach and remove the President it takes a majority vote and then a 3/4 vote of the House and Senate respectively. All members elected and held accountable by voters.

    In order for the USSC to make an absurd decision, it would take the action of five people, in office for life, held accountable by NOBODY. Those situations are NOT comparable.
     
  7. Jul 6, 2005 #187 of 193
    AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    Precisely. And that's why it's so important that we select Justices who do not limit our freedoms.
     
  8. Jul 6, 2005 #188 of 193
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    In order for the USSC to make an absurd decision, it would take the action of five people, in office for life, held accountable by NOBODY. Those situations are NOT comparable.

    You are forgetting another aspect of our government. A judge or group of judges who so violated their oaths of office would certainly be impeached by Congress.

    So your hypothetical situation is exactly like my own, as the judges would have to convince congress that what they were doing was legal.

    I would argue that the decision in Roe v. Wade, which made it illegal for states to protect unborn children falls into that category.

    Of course you would. Because abortion is so similar to the example I gave of suddenly making prohibition the law of the land again despite an amendment specifically ending it. :nono2:
     
  9. Jul 7, 2005 #189 of 193
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    An Amendment to the Constitution, duely passed and ratified by the states would be unassailable by the Court. It would then become a part of the CONSTITUTION and become inviolable as an integral part of it. In fact, an Amendment often carries more weight than the original Constitution. For instance the Amendment that allowed popular elections of US Senators was NOT ruled unconstitutional, and it overrode the original intent of the founders as expressly and definatively stated in the Constitution. The result is Senators are now elected by popular vote and NOT appointed by state legislatures as the original Constitution mandates.

    This is where you knuckleheads just don't get it!:hair:

    The Court rules on what is Constitutional. Change the Constitution, and that ruling may change.

    Again, what everyone is upset about is WHAT the Court rules Constitutional, or not! You don't like that people burn flags? OK, change the Constitution. You don't like women to have control of their reproductive options? OK, change the Constitution. You don't like taxpayer monies cannot be used to directly support your religion? OK, change the Constitution.

    Even when an Amendment contradicts a previous amendment, the course is clear. The latter Amendment overrides the former, as was the case with prohibition. So you don't like freedoms of religion, speech or the press? OK, change the Constitution!:grin:
     
  10. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Me - I say repeal the 16th (is that right?) Amendment and switch to a consumption tax.
     
  11. Aug 2, 2005 #191 of 193
    SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Addendum to the above post: The tax I'm talking about is the "Fair Tax".

    And now, back to topic.

    I just saw the rerun of West Wing where Penn & Teller "burn" an American Flag in the White House. It was a beautiful piece of work. Hopefully, some of you remember the episode so I don't have to detail it - maybe the script or something is out on the net.

    Anyway, the point that I saw as crucial is the respect that was shown. THAT'S what's important. Spitting on someone (figuratively or literally) is wrong, respectful discourse is right.

    They used a copy of the Bill of Rights to hold the flag while being "burnt". The closing line of the act was: "Even though the flag is gone, the Bill of Rights remains" (probably managled the quote - but not by much).

    Aside: I'm pretty sure I know how the trick was actually done. :)
     
  12. Aug 2, 2005 #192 of 193
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "Even though the flag is gone, the Bill of Rights remains" (probably managled the quote - but not by much).

    Exactamundo! When we tinker with the constitution it should be on the side of granting more human rights, not giving rights to inanimate objects like flags. While I respect our flag and fought for it, the respect is for the flag as a symbol of human rights. The fight was for our people, not for a piece of cloth. Furthermore, the inicidence of flag buring within the boundaries of the USA can probably be enumerated without having to take off ones shoes. Why make a big deal over this when our education system above fourth grade is going in a downward spiral, when we have increasing budget deficits, and a good number of people "teaking" on meth. Burn a flag an another will pop up in its place (probably manufactured in China).
     
  13. Aug 2, 2005 #193 of 193
    AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    What he said...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page