Old Glory Doesn't Need an Amendment

Don't you just love it when someone you hold on a pedestal happens to share your point of view? Mark Steyn has a brilliant piece today in which he explains why we don't need the constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Why legitimize the flag burners by lending credibility to their cause.

Like I blogged here last week, it's a feel-good, pseudo-patriotic, non-partisan show that makes an almost perfect distraction when so many other issues should dominate. Seriously...how big of a problem is flag burning in this country and like Steyn says, when it happens, let it happen so the real creeps can be easily identified.

Me thinks the politicos protesteth too much!

Amy Ridenour has another take on the flag burning ban:

Point 1: Speech involves flapping gums, not flames.

Point 2: Despite The Post editorial's claim, exceptions already are made to the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. Examples include defamation, causing panic/harm to others, incitement to crime, obscenity and sedition (advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government).

A more insightful Post editorial would have tackled the question: Does burning an American flag, by an American, in America, constitute sedition?

I would add that spending money, according to McCain-Feingold is also antithetical to freespeech, whereas many (myself included) do not. At some point it may be against the law to criticize incumbent politicians as it may become defined as "hate-speech," (seditious?) especially when one considers the import of international law in Supreme Court rulings.

But, again, I have to ask, where are all these flag burnings occurring?

Welcome Slate and Radio Equalizer readers!