Ann Althouse takes a dismissive attitude towards an amendment to prevent burning the flag.

June 27th, 2006

Plenty of folks over at Ann Althouse’s blog are contemptuous of the effort to pass a constitutional amendment protecting the American flag.

As I pointed out in a comment on her post:

There are already many interpreted exceptions to the First Amendment:

Commercial speech is not fully protected.

Fighting words.

Libel.

Campaign spending.

And “hate” speech.

Personally, cialis sales cialis I think many of those judicially-created exceptions should be tossed in the trash.

On the other hand, physician I have no problem with amending the Constitution to create a specific textual protection for our national symbol.

Protecting the flag will not suddenly invalidate the First Amendment. In fact, it will have much less an impact than all the exceptions I already noted. (Exceptions that are paradoxically loved by the Left – the self-appointed guardians of “free” speech.)

Do I feel the need for this amendment?

No.

But I don’t think it harms free speech.

And I appreciate that some people still recognize that amending the Constitution is the proper way to change the meaning and implications of the law, instead of just lobbying the judiciary to get them to reinterpret the document for you.

Entry Filed under: Observations,Politics