View Poll Results: Read the intro and vote accordingly

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1st Amendment

    4 7.27%
  • 2nd Amendment

    11 20.00%
  • 4th Amendment

    1 1.82%
  • 9th Amendment

    0 0%
  • 14th Amendment

    8 14.55%
  • Other.

    31 56.36%
Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 181

Thread: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

  1. #71
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    America (A.K.A., a red state)
    Last Seen
    09-24-13 @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And at this point in time, burning a flag one owns is allowed by the government to express dissent. It would seem to me that stifling this expression would be dictatorially curbing the 1st Amendment. I realize that this thread is about changing the Constitution, but is this what you are proposing?
    The Supreme Court declared flag-burning legal. They also declared slavery legal. They have no infallibility here. They've been wrong before and they are wrong about this. And yes, if I were in their place, as the deciding vote, I would fully ban flag-burning based on the fact that the government can tell Neo-Nazis which streets to demonstrate on, when to do it, how to do it, etc. Flag-burning is a how, not a what.
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner (paraphrasing James Bovard).

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    America (A.K.A., a red state)
    Last Seen
    09-24-13 @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    The government can limit our freedom of expression when it conflicts with other people's rights. I can't walk down a residential neighborhood with a bullhorn shoutng my political beliefs in the middle of the night because I'm disturbing the peace. I can't assemble a political rally in the middle of a freeway because I'm endangering lives. I can't paint your car with pro Ron Paul slogans (oh, how I'd like to ) because its vandalizing your property.

    However, I can burn a flag because it doesn't affect you one damn bit. You don't have a right to not be offended.
    That's still inconsistent with the Constitution.
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner (paraphrasing James Bovard).

  3. #73
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    09-26-16 @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,723

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Telling Neo-Nazis where and when they can hold a political rally is different from banning flag burning. An equivelent ban would be to tell Neo-Nazis they were not allowed to use the "Heil Hitler" salute, or were not allowed to goose step.

    I'm curious, why do you want to ban flag burning? OK, you find it repugnant, most folks will agree with you there, but beyond that do you really have a reason? Are afraid the carbon emissions from flag burning are contributing to global warming?

    I don't see how this simple act warrants such extraordinary measures, like amending our Constitution (and of course compromising our notion of free expression).
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  4. #74
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    09-26-16 @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,723

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Also for your example of telling Nazis (or any other group) where and when they can protest, here is the Court's reasoning:

    Government officials may not impose restrictions on protests or parades or other lawful assemblies in order to censor a particular viewpoint or because they dislike the content of the message. However, they may impose some limitations on assembly rights by enacting reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions designed to further legitimate regulatory objectives, such as preventing traffic congestion or prohibiting interference with nearby activities.
    Source: firstamendmentcenter.org: Assembly - Overview

    Restricting flag burning does not further legitimate regulatory objectives.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  5. #75
    Sage
    Stinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    The South
    Last Seen
    04-27-16 @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    14,120

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    The Supreme Court declared flag-burning legal.
    And it is and so far unconstitutional to pass a law forbidding it. If an amendment is passed which would allow the congress to pass a law making it illegal then it will be illegal when they do pass the law and the SCOTUS could do nothing about it, it would then be constitutional.
    "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
    Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
    No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

  6. #76
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by NguyenRhymesWithWin View Post
    Precisely my point. Just replace Freedom of Speech with the 2nd amendment. Unlike freedom of speech though, more people are way more likely to agree, "yeah, I think the government should have authority to chose who and who does not have guns.".

    The diferance is that the worse I can do with my pen is give some people bad ideas. Or write emo poetry. The most I can do with my assault rifle is mow down a school full of people. There's a pressing reason to put some restrictions on guns. Maybe not full-out ban them, but make sure that the people that do have guns aren't the ones that are going to go crazy on us. I mean, I'm sure even you'd agree that a murderer, even one who has served his time, should probably not have a gun. This is vastly different than the ability to write down your opinion. There is no justifiable reason to restrict that.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,060

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
    And it is and so far unconstitutional to pass a law forbidding it. If an amendment is passed which would allow the congress to pass a law making it illegal then it will be illegal when they do pass the law and the SCOTUS could do nothing about it, it would then be constitutional.
    Sounds like a stupid waste of time amendment to me.

    So what, someone burns a ****ing flag.

    Cry about it. (Not you Stinger, unless you are suggesting we ban burning of the flag).

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    The most I can do with my assault rifle is mow down a school full of people.
    If you mean to kill many humans, a ford pickup will allow for a bigger rampage and death toll than any firearm. Just go to a crowd of pedestrians, and you instantly outscore the gun guy. Wanna Ban Trucks ?

  9. #79
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 05:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    And yes, if I were in their place, as the deciding vote, I would fully ban flag-burning based on the fact that the government can tell Neo-Nazis which streets to demonstrate on, when to do it, how to do it, etc.
    But why would you disallow flag buring? Does flag burning cause traffic congestion? Does buring a flag create so much noise that it would disturb the peace if done at 3:00 in the morning?

    Why would you ban flag-burning?

  10. #80
    Sage
    Stinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    The South
    Last Seen
    04-27-16 @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    14,120

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Sounds like a stupid waste of time amendment to me.

    So what, someone burns a ****ing flag.

    Cry about it. (Not you Stinger, unless you are suggesting we ban burning of the flag).
    Just outlining how it would be done and that it would be of course be constitutional if the constitution is amended to allow such a law.
    "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
    Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
    No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •