GOP Congressman Ron Paul on Flag Burning (must read if...

[Steve]

you think the idea of banning flag burning is patriotic.

Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment


Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The process may well be legal, but it is unwise.

The problem is minimal. This is more like a solution in search of a problem. We just do not need to amend the Constitution for such a tiny problem.

It was stated earlier that this is the only recourse we have since the Supreme Court ruled the Texas law unconstitutional. That is not true. There are other alternatives.

It gets better. Read the rest below.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congr ... 62205b.htm

Steve

[Terry]

I wonder how many US flags are burned in the US in any given year?

I've never seen flag burning rise to the need for a constitutional amendment.

[Janice]

I agree with Terry on this issue. I think the law is fine the way it is. A few scattered flag burnings does not create a problem.

Bobbysocks

[stormchazer]

I would kick the b#tt of anyone burning the US flag, but I believe it is a 1st Amendment right of expression. I abhore the burning of Our flag but I will fight that action with my ideas and my rights, not with a Constitutional Amendment

[stormie_skies]

I will have to read this in a little bit .....Ron Paul is a true conservative, and I have a lot of respect for him.....we don't always agree, but I've always found his arguments well-reasoned.....he doesn't just go with the GOP spin flow, yanno?

My favorite politicians on both sides of the isle are the ones who arent afraid to stand by their beliefs, even when they arent politically expedient...

[Steve]

Beautiful post SS. Paul is almost Libertarian in his conservatism. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat even though I've never voted for the winning presidential candidate (meaning either I'm twisted or my vote is the kiss of death).

Steve

[stormie_skies]

Yes, he does lean towards libertarianism....which probably appeals to me because in some sense, I do too....

Someone explained the splits in our two political parties this way, and it made sense to me: on each side of the isle, there is a faction that values safety (be it physical, moral, "for the greater good" etc.) over personal freedom.... and there is a faction that favors personal freedom over the idea of personal safety (at least as far as government intervention is concerned). Thats why you can find libertarians and liberals who both believe in relaxing drug laws and allowing controvercial speech like flag burning, and some Democrats and Republicans can agree on some "nanny government" issues, like television/radio/movie censorship (think of the children!) and anti-smoking laws.

I think I am pretty solidly in the liberal/freedom camp ... so while I think libertarianism in some areas of government is simply unfeasable, I can respect the ideas behind it and can agree with libertarians on issues in which I do think allowing freedom would be possible....

Paul is a Texan too, I believe ....I'm not in his district, but I would probably vote for him if I was. As it is, I will have the privilege of voting against Tom Delay .... which is prolly more important in the long run anyways