- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
"I consider them (American flags and yellow ribbons) to be symbols, and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded". -George Carlin
My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.Originally Posted by Torchbearer
Great victory for freedom...
Most are kinda silky not sure that would work all that great...I need something with a little texture to it
I would say that:
1-People have the right to be fools.
2-This is impossible to enforce.
3-It is an emotionally driven law, as opposed to reasoned.
why are courts wasting tax $ on stupid $#@! like this ?
You are the Universe experiencing itself
All the misconceptions in the comments about the supposed “freedom to burn flags” stem from one great misunderstanding about the 1st Amendment (and the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights): Despite what the Supreme Court has said in the so-called incorporation cases, in our federal system, the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to state laws, such as the Texas flag desecration statue in Texas v. Johnson. The Bill of Rights is a limitation only on the federal government and does not permit federal interference with state criminal or civil legislation.
Put another way, the federal government and the supreme court has no power to set aside state laws which actually conflict or seem to conflict with the Bill of Rights. And for the federal government to interfere with those laws violates the 10th Amendment reservation of state powers.
And matters such as flag burning turn on state constitutional law.
For a full discussion on the matter, please go to The 14th Amendment “Incorporation Cases” Violate the 10th and are Unconstitutional @ http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com...onstitutional/.
In short, libertarians ought be constitutionalists and not political theorists. And they ought to recognize the supremacy of the Constitution itself, even when it pinches.
Doing things to pieces of cloth should not be crimes.
Edit: Your blog mentions a case where people were stealing and destroying someone else's piece of cloth.
The fact that the cloth belonged to someone else is the only reason a crime was committed -- how the cloth looked should not matter.
Last edited by Yieu; 03-31-2012 at 08:04 AM.
Yieu: Perhaps not, but the federal government has no power to decriminalize state criminal statutes.
I was just stating what I consider to be more ideal: the State not having that law.
Edit: I think property law should have handled that case just fine, and they would have had a stronger case.
Destruction of property is a crime, and I consider that aspect of the case worse than flag desecration.
The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the "freedom of expression" to destroy other people's property or flags.
Last edited by Yieu; 03-31-2012 at 09:11 AM.
Yieu: "So long as those statues don't violate the Constitution/Bill of Rights, you're correct, from a legal and Constitutional perspective."
No. Those statutes can "violate" the federal Bill of Rights, because the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government. The question is whether the statute violates the state constitution.
The other amendments do not mention the states, but merely state the rights of the people, such as to bear arms.Originally Posted by First Amendment
I wonder why it was written like that? Why would the First Amendment mention only congress, but the rest simply state the rights of the people?
Last edited by eduardo89; 03-31-2012 at 01:00 PM.
"Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."
On the incorporation question, many answers are given @ The 14th Amendment “Incorporation Cases” Violate the 10th and are Unconstitutional @ http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com...onstitutional/. See there especially Barron v. Baltimore (1833), where Marshall held that the Bill of Rights was not applicable to the states.
The 14th amendment did require that states treat its citizens (black and white) equally in state legislation, in state bills of rights, in state judicial proceedings, and in the state's enforcement of law. And it gave Congress power to enact legislation to implement it; and the federal courts power to hear cases where state action resulted in discrimination in any of those things.
But 14th didn't change the fundamental relationship between federal and state government, as it is often wrongly assumed.
Last edited by Douglass Bartley; 03-31-2012 at 01:44 PM.