In a typical Times editorial, the paper is taking the position that a Constitutional amendment would be, well, unconstitutional.
With the Fourth of July fast approaching, Senate Republicans are holding a barbecue. Unfortunately, instead of grilling hot dogs and hamburgers, they are trying to torch a hole in the First Amendment's free speech guarantee by passing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow federal and state authorities to punish flag-burning.
Some things should be out of bounds even in a competitive election year. Messing with the Constitution is one of them.
It is against the law to kill a bald eagle, which, besides being endangered, is a national icon. If the Times can claim that burning a Flag is protected Free Speech, why couldn't I claim that I should be able to shoot a bald eagle as Free Speech (not that I would, mind you)?
Or, burn the New York Times building as a protest against their anti-American articles? Isn't that Free Speech? Or just a violent action, designed to make one feel better, but harm and offend others in the process?
I'll tell you what, Libs: if you allow me my Right to beat the ever-lovin'-shit out of someone caught burning the Flag, I'll leave you your Right to burn one of our national symbols. Sound fair? No? You won't allow that? Because beating the crap out of a flag burner is an action, not speech? Much like burning something, eh?
And the Times is correct: some things should be out of bounds during an election year. Like publishing hit pieces on the sitting president in 2004, and releasing classified information. Well, actually, that should be out of bounds at all times.
Finally, the Times has obviously failed to read the Consitution. If something is passed as an Amendment, then it cannot be un-Constitutional. Period. Wouldn't it be free speech to stop people from voting? I'm glad they passed several Amendments to stop that Right (sic). Or how about the Right to own property? Was it a denial of that Right when they passed the XIIIth Amendment?
As a sidebar, the 13th Amendment is actually rather strange. It says that people can be made slaves or involuntary servents as punishment for a crime. I wonder if that would include suing the Times for the crime of releasing secret information?
Stop The ACLU on the Senate debate
