In class were are learning about Flag Burning with Brownback and Feingold. Which argument - Browback's or Feingold's - do you find more persuasive? What additional claims might you make to support your position on the constitutional issue of flag burning?
2007-07-17 06:21:50 · 3 answers · asked by roxcorduroy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I find Feingold's argument more persuasive. We need to be careful when we amend the Constitution, especially when it comes to the issues that oppress the individual like flag burning. He points out that citizens love and respect the flag basically out of choice, and we cannot force individuals to love or respect a flag. Even after the Revolution, we did not force the Loyalists to become Patriots. In a free society that choice should, and does in any case, remain up to the individual. Even if they make it a crime to burn the flag, do you really think it will stop them? Drugs are illegal, yet people still use them. People have the right to freedom of expression in this country. And we cannot take that away from them just because it offends us. How can we call ourselves a free country, yet punish those who exercise their freedom of expression? If we punish those who want to burn the flag, then how long will it be before we start doing the same thing to people who speak out against the government? People who protest what the government does or it's policies? If we are going to live in a free country, then we have to allow liberty for everyone including those who offend us. We also need to learn to tolerate each other's actions.
2007-07-17 07:06:31 · answer #1 · answered by j 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Althought immoral it's still an expression of speech protected by the first amendment. It should be allowed even if it does sound unpatriotic.
2007-07-17 06:28:33 · answer #2 · answered by Russell C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Flag (and the freedoms for which it stands) is meaningless if you don't have the freedom to burn it.
2007-07-17 07:07:54 · answer #3 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋