Bay Area's Own Tom Lantos Votes To Ammend The Bill Of Rights

I don't have a lot of time to post these days, as I'm hard at work studying to pass the New York Bar Exam, but I just had to take time out to highlight the stupidest comment I've read in a long, long time.

It seems that the House of Representatives has approved an anti-flag desecration amendment ( http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050622/D8ASREC00.html ), prompting Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif to assert:

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center ... [a]sk them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."


Oh really, Randy? Well, by that "logic," (and I use the term very lightly) dog, I suppose you could also throw out "ask the men and women who stood on top of the World Trade Center - they'd say repeal the whole Bill of Rights," or maybe "ask the men and women who stood on top of the World Trade Center - they'd say drink Pepsi!"

Randy, you're an idiot. Don't believe me? Just ask the people who stood on top of the World Trade Center on September 11th.

More
http://www.dummocrats.com/archives/000996.php

It is hard to believe with all the problems the country faces today that there are still elected officials who seek to waste their time with yet another attempt to outlaw a form of speech that is wrapped in patriotic overtones for both sides. They obviously think this is an easy form of voter solicitation for reelection purposes. As you rightly point out, however, the victim would be the Bill of Rights and our constitutional balance. The irony is that, should something like this pass, it will likely bring about more flag burning protests where few or none now exist.

Michael Pope, Chicago
---

No one can "desecrate" the flag, by definition. Only sacred objects can be desecrated, and the American flag, beloved as it is, is not one. To amend the Constitution to prohibit the desecration of the flag would constitute the establishment of religion, which clearly is unconstitutional.

Philip L. Blackwell, Chicago
---

You asked for comment -- here's mine. I am a veteran of the Viet Nam era. I swore to defend the United States Constitution when I joined the army in 1965. I have continued to defend the Constitution as a civilian and have always understood that freedom of speech should not be constrained by the government. That freedom is something that sets the United States apart from some other countries in the world. We are allowed to openly criticize our government and our governmental officials when we do not agree with them.

I oppose any amendment to the Constitution that seeks to limit that freedom to speak out and am pleased that the Tribune opposes it as well. The flag is and has long been a very powerful symbol of the United States. But it is just a symbol, not the country itself. I, for one, believe that in order to preserve the cherished freedom of speech, we must allow someone to "speak" by burning or otherwise desecrating the flag. In so doing, we guarantee that freedom of speech will continue in this country. Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind.

Bruce T. Lang, Bloomington
---

As a Republican, I have to take issue with a Constitutional amendment to protect the flag.

Title 1, Chapter 4, Section 8 of the U.S. Code states that, "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."

Therefore, burning the flag is not the issue itself.

What is the issue is burning the flag as a protest. Since the action (burning the flag) is clearly not the problem, obviously the statement (the anti-government sentiment behind protest burning) is. Therefore, unless it were to propose banning any burning of the flag, there is no way to view the proposed amendment as anything but an attempt to stifle free – if offensive - speech.

Craig Shields, Chicago
---

I was surprised to learn that the war in Iraq is over, that hunger and poverty have been eradicated, that global warming and the AIDS crisis have been effectively dealt with, and that we as a nation are no longer faced with any serious issues. Otherwise, why would Congress have the time to be busying itself with that recurring publicity stunt known as the flag desecration amendment?

Erich Schrempp, Chicago
---

As a Girl Scout I learned how to respect the flag. We were taught how to fold it neatly into a triangle. We fought over who would carry it and who would make sure it never touched the ground. Now we are faced with a Congress who wants to desecrate the flag by curtailing our freedoms. Flag burning is just one very rare way that people critical of the government show their anger. What is to stop the Congress from outlawing other forms of speech? Why don't we deal with real issues of the day? Here are a few to start out with: fully funding public education, fully funding

Medicare, and addressing how we are going to get out of Iraq.

Veronica I. Arreola, Chicago
---