We can't amend the Constitution to make it self-contradictory. (re: flag)

[Baconfoot]

We can't amend the Constitution to make it self-contradictory.
I shudder to think what the language of a flag burning amendment would have to be like to ensure that other constitutionally protected forms of speech did not fall by the wayside. Honestly I don't think it could be done.

I would ask those who are considering supporting a candidate DESPITE that candidate's support of such an amendment to contemplate the following:

Imagine Bush wins the 2004 election and subsequently the worst fears of liberals, progressives, leftists, and libertarians come to pass (not that I pretend to really understand what any of those categories mean).

How important will it be then that we have the right to burn the flag or participate in other, similar forms of free speech if need be?

The ability to freely dissent is of vital importance to a free society and I could never support a candidate who proposed to limit this not only fundamental but essential right.

Is there a rational basis for doing so?

[La_Serpiente]

1. My biggest fear

is that if we open the Constitutional Convention floodgates, they might want to pass or push for another amendment during the same legislative session. Whatever it is, I am not sure, but I wouldn't like it if the Republicans were in power at the time.

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. It will be abortion rights and curch/state sperataions

That's their pet issues and they would surely be addressed at the same time. I think the whole flag issue is designed to specifically do that; open the floodgates.

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Don_G]

2. Exactly

It will take years, if not decades, to repair the damage to our judical system Dimbo and cohorts have caused already. I shudder to think what another 4 years of that asshole might bring.

[politicat]

3. Constitutional Convention VERY bad.... Amendment.... Dunno.

I keep thinking it would have to fail. Amendments can pass both houses and still die once they hit the states. They have to be ratifed by 75% (I think, or possibly 2/3rds. I'm not looking it up it;s late.) of the states. That's HARD. Look at ERA... and half of the constituency would have been materially affected by its passing.

Amendments are notoriously hard to pass.... that's why we don't have that many.

Related, but bizarre is that I've been re-watching (and in some cases) watching The West Wing on tape since I've missed everything but the 1st season (we don't do TV and haven't for nearly 2 years). The eopisode 20 hours in LA from season 1 dealt with this and I recall the #s being accurate - most people consider this a non issue. It's only a small group with leather lungs.

A Constitutional Convention, on the other hand....

That is one scary idea.

Though again, a new consitiution would have to be ratified, and that would be a tough row to hoe - 50 states instead of 13, everyone over 18 capable of voting instead of only the (rich) white land owning males, internet debates and calls to reps ....

The sensible man would never even consider a ConCon at this point.

[jobycom]

4. Yes, that's what an amendment does

Amendments alter the Constitution and become part of it. They are not laws that can be overruled by the Supreme Court. The Constitution-- the document which defines how our government works and what it can do-- is changed. Amendments change the intention all the time. Slavery was tacitly approved in the body but forbidden by an amendment. An income tax is forbidden in the body but allowed in an amendment. Amendments even alter other amendments, as with the recall of prohibition.

That's the point. There would be a built-in limit to the right of expression, which would supercede the right of expression gauranteed in the First.

And Clark and Kucinich think this is good.