Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I voted No but I would like it to be a requirement that if you want to protest something and burn the American flag you first need to step through a line of veterans that have risked their lives for that flag and our country.
If the veterans allow it then go ahead and burn it but don't call the police if you get beat up.
They already gave that "permission" when they fought for it. You don't see the irony there?
I voted No but I would like it to be a requirement that if you want to protest something and burn the American flag you first need to step through a line of veterans that have risked their lives for that flag and our country.
So, you don't believe in liberty at all. Rather, you just want to serve up the hollow pretense of liberty - but anyone who tries to exercise that liberty will be subject to violent reprisals.
How disgustingly antithetical to everything for which America stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
I don't care what the courts have said. I disagree with MANY of their rulings.
The Constitution says, "Freedom of SPEECH"
Burning a flag is NOT "speech" it is an ACTION.
Protest is an ACTION marching/sit ins, etc. as a group to show displeasure in something, "Freedom of Assembly"
I find it funny how many liberals are OK with bringing down the "Confederate battle flag", free speech be damned yet, are OK with burning the U.S flag.
The word "hypocrites" comes to mind.
Kinda' like, "It depends on what the "meaning" of the word is, is.
Speech is an action, genius.
Quote:
action
[ak-shuh n]
noun
1. the process or state of acting or of being active:
The machine is not in action now. 2. something done or performed; act; deed. 3. an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity:
a crisis that demands action instead of debate; hoping for constructive action by the landlord.
4. actions, habitual or usual acts; conduct:
He is responsible for his actions.
5. energetic activity:
a man of action.
6. an exertion of power or force:
the action of wind upon a ship's sails.
7. effect or influence:
the action of morphine.
I recommend getting a clue as to the nature of 'speech' in Constitutional law. It is held as that which is intended to convey a message. You can start here, if you're interested in knowing what you're talking about (I doubt you are, but others might be):
A battle flag used exclusively by a group of traitors. Keep it coming, you're hilarious.
"by a group of traitors"
Was ANYBODY tried in court after the war for being a "traitor"?
I think NOT.
When you "join" ANY group you ALSO have the RIGHT to resign from that SAME group.
NOTHING in the Constitution says you CANNOT leave the Union AFTER you have become of it.
This is the first time I have seen this.
I find it quite interesting:
"The Declaration of Independence is not about preserving a union. It is a declaration of secession; it is about the �Right of the People to alter or to abolish� one form of government �and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers on such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.� It is about a person�s right �to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature�s God entitle them.�"
"Did the South Have a Right to Secede? In the modern era, one reads more and more that the great Southern leaders were �traitors.� Robert E. Lee, Thomas J. �Stonewall� Jackson, and Jefferson Davis, all heroes of the Mexican War, however, were no more and no less traitors than Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were traitors to Great Britain. At West Point, which George E. Pickett, Stonewall Jackson, and Joe Johnston attended, the constitutional law book that all three Confederate generals had studied, A View of the Constitution of the United States by William Rawle�a Philadelphia abolitionist and Supreme Court Justice�taught that states had a right to secede: �To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.�"
"Union officers had studied Rawle as well. Indeed, the idea of state supremacy, of states� rights to nullify federal law, and of a right to secede if the issue were truly grave, had a long, distinguished history in America. In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, Jefferson and Madison, authors respectively of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution�enraged at the jailing of editors under the Alien and Sedition Acts�argued that states had a right to nullify patently unconstitutional federal law."
"a freshman congressman critic of the Mexican War spoke of the inherent right of states to secede:
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,�a most sacred right�a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit�.It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
These are the words of Abraham Lincoln, January 12,1848. "
" [SIZE=5]Proof there was no Treason[/SIZE] [LEFT]By the war's end, Confederate President, Jefferson Davis was captured and held prisoner in Fortress Monroe (22 May, 1865) for two years by the United States Government. Though indicted on charges of Treason, no trial was ever held, though it was understood that he would be tried as a traitor and executed.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]The only problem was that the attorneys recommended by the Government all agreed that the trial would be lost because there was no evidence of Treason.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Rather than admit that the charges of Treason were unfounded and thereby admitting that the U.S. was wrong in waging war against the South, Jefferson Davis was freed on May 13, 1867. His release came after a finding by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase, that there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibited the secession of states. If secession was not illegal, neither Davis nor any other Confederate leaders could be guilty of treason.
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]If Jefferson Davis, the Commander in Chief of the Confederate Forces and President of the Confederate States of America could not be tried for Treason due to lack of evidence, then why are charges that the Confederates were traitors to their country still being used today? (For more information see James Ronald & Walter Donald Kennedy's book "Was Jefferson Davis Right" by Pelican Press)"
"Confederate veterans were afforded status equal to that of United States veterans by an act approved by the Congress of the United States"
" CONFEDERATE FORCES VETERANS Sec. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such... if such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the United States. Sec. 2. This act shall be effective from the first day of the second calendar month following its enactment.
So, you don't believe in liberty at all. Rather, you just want to serve up the hollow pretense of liberty - but anyone who tries to exercise that liberty will be subject to violent reprisals.
How disgustingly antithetical to everything for which America stands.
I recommend getting a clue as to the nature of 'speech' in Constitutional law. It is held as that which is intended to convey a message. You can start here, if you're interested in knowing what you're talking about (I doubt you are, but others might be):
"Your author, "[SIZE=-1]Doug Linder"[/SIZE] is entitled to his opinion just like everybody else.
We KNOW lawyers like to twist the English language to fit their cause.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is".
And like I stated I disagree, along with tens of thousands of others, on many court rulings.
Courts are NoT infallible as we have seen over our history how LATER COURTS HAVE OVER RULED OLDER COURTS DECISIONS.
You MIGHT want to consult a dictionary BEGONE calling out others as "genius" and throwing out condescending insults BEFORE making a complete fool of your self. speech
(spēch)n.1. a. The faculty or act of speaking. b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
2. a. What is spoken or expressed, as in conversation; uttered or written words: seditious speech. b. A talk or public address, or a written copy of this: The senator gave a speech.
3. a. The language or dialect of a nation or region: American speech. b. One's manner or style of speaking: the mayor's mumbling speech.
4. The study of oral communication, speech sounds, and vocal physiology.
Just because YOU have no respect for your country and the flag and what it stands does NOT mean that the rest of us don't.
I'd be embarrassed to post such disrespectful drivel as yours.
People from ALL OVER the world risk life and death for themselves and their families just to try to come here BECAUSE it is a hellofa lot better then when they live now.
Is you screen name some kind of French?
Remember without US the french would be speaking German.
You live in Washington state a liberal la-la land and enjoy the fruits and labors of tens of thousands of Americans who have died for their country and all you can do is post "it is just a piece of cloth".
How sad, very, very sad.
Yes, they do. They do it because they appreciate our open society, which is due to the constitution. Not because they think our flag is the prettiest.
You are mistaking the symbol for the thing itself. You apparently value the symbol more than you value free speech. That's very confused thinking.
What does the president swear to defend? The flag?
I'm an american, so my screen name is american as well. (My german father and my swedish mother gave me a french name because they liked the sound of it. That's about as american as it gets.)
Was ANYBODY tried in court after the war for being a "traitor"?
I think NOT.
When you "join" ANY group you ALSO have the RIGHT to resign from that SAME group.
NOTHING in the Constitution says you CANNOT leave the Union AFTER you have become of it.
This is the first time I have seen this.
I find it quite interesting:
"The Declaration of Independence is not about preserving a union. It is a declaration of secession; it is about the �Right of the People to alter or to abolish� one form of government �and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers on such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.� It is about a person�s right �to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature�s God entitle them.�"
"Did the South Have a Right to Secede? In the modern era, one reads more and more that the great Southern leaders were �traitors.� Robert E. Lee, Thomas J. �Stonewall� Jackson, and Jefferson Davis, all heroes of the Mexican War, however, were no more and no less traitors than Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were traitors to Great Britain. At West Point, which George E. Pickett, Stonewall Jackson, and Joe Johnston attended, the constitutional law book that all three Confederate generals had studied, A View of the Constitution of the United States by William Rawle�a Philadelphia abolitionist and Supreme Court Justice�taught that states had a right to secede: �To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.�"
"Union officers had studied Rawle as well. Indeed, the idea of state supremacy, of states� rights to nullify federal law, and of a right to secede if the issue were truly grave, had a long, distinguished history in America. In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, Jefferson and Madison, authors respectively of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution�enraged at the jailing of editors under the Alien and Sedition Acts�argued that states had a right to nullify patently unconstitutional federal law."
"a freshman congressman critic of the Mexican War spoke of the inherent right of states to secede:
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,�a most sacred right�a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit�.It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
These are the words of Abraham Lincoln, January 12,1848. "
" [SIZE=5]Proof there was no Treason[/SIZE] [LEFT]By the war's end, Confederate President, Jefferson Davis was captured and held prisoner in Fortress Monroe (22 May, 1865) for two years by the United States Government. Though indicted on charges of Treason, no trial was ever held, though it was understood that he would be tried as a traitor and executed.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]The only problem was that the attorneys recommended by the Government all agreed that the trial would be lost because there was no evidence of Treason.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Rather than admit that the charges of Treason were unfounded and thereby admitting that the U.S. was wrong in waging war against the South, Jefferson Davis was freed on May 13, 1867. His release came after a finding by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase, that there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibited the secession of states. If secession was not illegal, neither Davis nor any other Confederate leaders could be guilty of treason.
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]If Jefferson Davis, the Commander in Chief of the Confederate Forces and President of the Confederate States of America could not be tried for Treason due to lack of evidence, then why are charges that the Confederates were traitors to their country still being used today? (For more information see James Ronald & Walter Donald Kennedy's book "Was Jefferson Davis Right" by Pelican Press)"
"Confederate veterans were afforded status equal to that of United States veterans by an act approved by the Congress of the United States"
" CONFEDERATE FORCES VETERANS Sec. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such... if such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the United States. Sec. 2. This act shall be effective from the first day of the second calendar month following its enactment.
I voted No but I would like it to be a requirement that if you want to protest something and burn the American flag you first need to step through a line of veterans that have risked their lives for that flag and our country.
If the veterans allow it then go ahead and burn it but don't call the police if you get beat up.
I'm a veteran and I have no problem with people burning flags in protest. Indeed, I happily DEFENDED their right to do that very thing (and many others).
I'm a veteran and I have no problem with people burning flags in protest. Indeed, I happily DEFENDED their right to do that very thing (and many others).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
