{updated from original post on 6/22 at 6:49 p.m.} Look for Gary Ackerman to get "the treatment" from the right wing blogosphere any day now. The New York congressman was on Abrams' show on MSNBC tonight expressing his opposition to the newly minted Constitutional amendment banning flag burning, which was passed by the House 286-130.
Ackerman asked "who passes law banning flag burning? Hitler had a law against burning the flag. Mussolini had a law against burning the flag ... Saddam Hussein had a law making it punishable by death ... dictators pass laws like this. (paraphrasing) ..." I guess he didn't read his Washington Post today ...
Still, Durbin flap be damned, I'm agreeing with Ackerman -- and Dan Abrams -- on this one. Why do we need to amend the United States Constitution -- and the Bill of Rights at that -- to address maybe 120 incidents of desecration of the flag by a few nut-jobs? To paraphrase Abrams, what's next? An amendment barring the desecration of a picture of the president (I'm sure Dubya would love that one)... or maybe one barring American citizens from maligning or ridiculing the Commander in Chief during wartime...? Ackerman is right in saying that an amendment essentially banning protest speech smacks of dictatorial thinking, and paranoia.
A co-sponsor of the House bill stated on the same program that "in an age of terrorism..." we've got to ban actions that could incite our enemies. Well, newsflash GOP grandstanders: our enemies are already incited, and they are the ones doing most of the flag burning (Michelle Malkin has an entire section on her blog that's devoted to the point), along with Muslims all over the world and even people in countries we consider to be our friends.
So what we're saying is, go ahead foreigners angry with America: burn the flag. Just don't give any Americans any ideas? Or is this a sneaky work-around to find a new federal law with which to prosecute potential terrorists, pesky muslims and suspicious looking American citizens whose flag burning might signal that they're somehow down with al-Qaida? Even if that's the thinking, this new amendment, and the laws Washington politicians would create around if it were to pass the Senate (67 votes neeeded) and the 38 necessary state legislatures approved it, could theoretically be used to haul anti-government protesters -- American citizens mind you -- into federal court. Isn't that something dicatorships do?
On a more basic level, what in the hell is Congress doing up there on the Hill? Is this the most pressing item on their agenda? They've done nothing on health insurance, they've screwed up Medicare prescription drugs, and the FBI -- whom Congress supervises -- says it don't need no stinking terrorism experts. Pass a meaningful bill, guys. Cut the bloated budget or the deficit or something. We'll worry about the flag burning yahoos on this end.
Update: Here's what some of the bloggers are posting on this topic--
The conservative Jawa Report on June 15:
Utopian societies are evil because they force men to do what is seen as proper action. Communism compelled redistribution of wealth by murdering millions. Islamists compel proper religious duty through force of law and penalty of death. What makes America the last best hope on Earth is that we compel so little of our proper action. As Dinesh D'Souza so forcefully argues in What's So Great About America: The radical Islamists hate us not because they misunderstand us, but because they understand us all too well. They know that "America is a subversive idea" -- and that the spread of American ideals such as democracy, capitalism, and individual rights will undermine their efforts to establish theocracy. [source] To pass an Amendment outlawing flag desecration is to take away a little of America's greatness.
Esquilax revives his flag burning page (and counsels crazies not to bother with the death threats, he's immune...)
Nothing on Powerline, Hugh Hewitt or Malkin's sites yet on this topic... the conservs are peculirarly silent on this one...
Updeate 2: At least one RedState poster disagrees that the amendment is a bad idea --
Re: Flag-burning amendment [Paul J Cella] I like it for this reason alone: If enacted, it represents the first example in modern times of the republican institution of this nation, namely Congress, rebuking the usurpation of the courts. There is even a certain poetry in the idea that such an example (a big step toward the restoration of robust self-government) would, in its formal appearance, concern the flag, our national symbol.
Posted at 06/22/2005 07:54:27 PM EST - #
|
Post a Comment