Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Desecration of the principles for which the flag stands
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
Pages: 1, 2
Lexington
So flags shouldn't be burned for the same reason we don't allow people to spraypaint on national monuments? I don't see the link. I'm not allowed to spraypaint on my neighbor's house either, but that's not because it's a national monument. It's because it doesn't belong to me. Spraypainting a national monument is illegal because it's the defacing of property that isn't mine. But if I buy a flag and set it ablaze, I'm burning my own property, and thus is a completely different situation.

Perhaps we don't buy flags - we only rent them?

LXN
Illini_fan
QUOTE
Lexington:
So flags shouldn't be burned for the same reason we don't allow people to spraypaint on national monuments?  I don't see the link.  I'm not allowed to spraypaint on my neighbor's house either, but that's not because it's a national monument.  It's because it doesn't belong to me.  Spraypainting a national monument is illegal because it's the defacing of property that isn't mine.  But if I buy a flag and set it ablaze, I'm burning my own property, and thus is a completely different situation.

Perhaps we don't buy flags - we only rent them?

LXN
Then we owe China a whole lot of money. We imported $5.5 million worth of American flags last year, mostly from China. And exported a little under a million, mostly to Mexico.

We have a trade deficit on American flags. This country is so weird sometimes.
:confused:
ITJock
QUOTE
MIB
The Court struck down a law banning flag burning in 1989. Amont [SIC] the majority was Justice Scalia, one of the most brilliant legal minds of the 20th and now 21st century.
That was a joke right? Ha, Ha, Er...

I admit that a few of his rulings may have come down as being libertarian; but for the most part he is formalist and the leading originalist voice of textualism.

He believes he can understand the Constitution without regard to the intent of the framers, and he considers legislative history to be irrelevant.

Still I will admit he is way ahead of that idiot Justice Breyer - His opinions are almost totally indecipherable.

R

PS - I will agree to one thing.

All this discussion about the flag has convinced me. What the new house really needs is a 45 foot flagpole with a yardarm down by the beach.

[ July 05, 2006, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]
MIB
QUOTE
ITJock:


He believes he can understand the Constitution without regard to the intent of the framers, and he considers legislative history to be irrelevant.
Perhaps you should reread his opinions, then, because he often cites the Framers, including many of their works, when attempting to discern their intent.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.