Comments by "craxd1" (@craxd1) on "Rep. Baldasaro sounds off on flag burners" video.

  1. Steve Lusk I have noticed on several websites pertaining to law, including websites such as Cornell University, that they have added the word "expression" in the title, which in reality is a lie. The 1st Amendment (Article the 3rd) in the original Bill of Rights document, does not have the word, expression, anywhere in it, thus freedom of expression is not a right granted by the Bill of Rights as many try to claim. Speech, religion, and the written word are three forms of expression, but the right to any type of expression is not protected. Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman in 1989 and 1990, are due to liberal Judges, and was what made burning the flag protected as "symbolic speech", and they still try to call it an expression. I believe that can be easily overturned in court once Scalia is replaced. Also, it would be a very good amendment to add to the Constitution; stopping any desecration or destruction of any US federal or state flag, symbol, or seal, unless they have been worn out, and only then by certain means. "The most recent attempt to adopt a flag desecration amendment failed in the United States Senate by one vote on June 27, 2006." The GOP controls congress now.
    2
  2. The burning of the flag is legal according to a court case, not the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Burning the flag is not free speech, and the 1st Amendment does not cover all expression, only three types of expression, religion, speech, and the penned word. Speech is per orem, not the action of burning something. Also, burning can be seen as an act that is dangerous, and that is not covered under peaceably to assemble. The word "expression" is not written anywhere within the Bill of Rights. All the rights granted under the 1st Amendment have limits (libel, slander, riot, public endangerment, etc). After the Supreme Court changes, one may just see the case about flag burning be taken up again.
    1