Federal Judge Finds Iowa Flag Desecration Statutes Unenforceable http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262302,00.html Yet another example of how the South was right. :dis:
i would happily warm my home with burning american flags. if you think burning a flag is a big deal, and an arrestable offense, then i dont think you really understand america.
I don't understand America? It's not just this issue...but many more. Is there such thing as states' rights anymore? What's the point of even having states now-a-days...besides using our governments to help the feds control the populace? But what do I know, I don't really understand America, do I martin?
if you favor states passing laws banning flag burning, then no. states have rights, but they cant violate the constitution. thats why the federal judge ruled the way they did. the judge understands america. i slept through my constitutional law classes, but this much i remember.
Strange. I've read the constitution several times, and I don't see where it says that people can burn our flag in protest. Why, on some issues, do the left constantly say "This is a state issue."? They do not want the feds to pass amendments, but at the same time tell states they can't pass laws due to the way a judge interprets the constitution. The way I see it, the states can not win. No matter what the majority of a state decide, through an open voting process, the federal judges reserve the right to come in behind them and tell them they can't do this or that. With such broad interpretations of the constitution, it's easy for the left (using their liberal judges) to say anything they don't agree with somehow violates it's intention.
So then would you would support the Medical Marijuana clubs in several states that have been made legal by voters of that state, but get shut down by the DEA?
Good point. I always favor the states rights to govern her own people first. There are few issues where I would agree with federal intervention into their own accepted laws. This is an example of one I would support the stance of the federal government. However, I would rather a certain state allow it within their borders, over the federal government making it legal just to satisfy a small minority of states. Another example is our legal drinking age. I very much supported Louisiana having the legal drinking age at 18. The feds pressured us, and made us change it to 21. I don't agree with this. Mostly, I don't agree with feds making us change it. It should be left up to the voting populace of the state when the constitution does not "specifically" give guidance on an issue.
No state law can be in contrast to the Constitution. Flag burning is protected speech, and it has been ruled as such multiple times. Only communist countries ban it.
I agree. Each state should let the voters decide what practices it would like to be legal, as long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution. No need for the Feds to be involved with local issues against the wishes of the majority of the voters of the State. As far as the flag burning thing, I always liked the approach were you are welcome to do it as free speech, but if I kick your ass for doing it there is a significantly reduced penalty, like a small fine. Treat the flag burner in the same manner you would for someone who is attempting to incite a riot. You wouldn't walk into a mosque and burn a Koran in front of the audience. It would be legal, but really dangerous to the burner. So should flag burners beware if they walk into somewhere like downtown Ft Worth or Monroe or any southern city and start burning the flag.
