(no subject)
Jun. 27th, 2005 03:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
somedaybitcha conundrum of an argument.
on the one hand, he seems to be saying that SCOTUS was out of line in arguing that Federal interests outweigh State re the medical marijuana decision, yet on the other, arguing that it's okay for states to pass flag burning laws but not for SCOTUS to rule them unconstitutional.
the former is a states' rights issue, not one of commerce as the high court argued. what commerce is threatened by cancer patients taking medically prescribed marijuana?
the latter, however, is behavior protected under free speech. people have a right to burn the flag if it's their chosen method of protest. i have a "right" to kick their ass for it, but hey, they should be able to burn the flag if they want. you can climb up on a soapbox and call any elected official, or the government collectively, fucking wingnuts that couldn't find their ass with two hands so why can't you burn a hunk of material?
the author confuses me.
update:Mark Steyn writes in his column:
i have immense respect for Duke Cunningham. respect that comes from knowing the military inside story of his naval service. but his comments make me want to bitch slap him.
our country was attacked precisely because of its freedoms, not in spite of them. taking away a form of political protest in a democratic nation doesn't make it stronger. i would have thought the original "top gun" would know that.
Steyn follows Cunningham's comments with,
ayup.
on the one hand, he seems to be saying that SCOTUS was out of line in arguing that Federal interests outweigh State re the medical marijuana decision, yet on the other, arguing that it's okay for states to pass flag burning laws but not for SCOTUS to rule them unconstitutional.
the former is a states' rights issue, not one of commerce as the high court argued. what commerce is threatened by cancer patients taking medically prescribed marijuana?
the latter, however, is behavior protected under free speech. people have a right to burn the flag if it's their chosen method of protest. i have a "right" to kick their ass for it, but hey, they should be able to burn the flag if they want. you can climb up on a soapbox and call any elected official, or the government collectively, fucking wingnuts that couldn't find their ass with two hands so why can't you burn a hunk of material?
the author confuses me.
update:Mark Steyn writes in his column:
The House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment on flag burning last week, in the course of which Rep. Randy ''Duke'' Cunningham (Republican of California) made the following argument:
''Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: Pass this amendment."
i have immense respect for Duke Cunningham. respect that comes from knowing the military inside story of his naval service. but his comments make me want to bitch slap him.
our country was attacked precisely because of its freedoms, not in spite of them. taking away a form of political protest in a democratic nation doesn't make it stronger. i would have thought the original "top gun" would know that.
Steyn follows Cunningham's comments with,
"Unlike Congressman Cunningham, I wouldn't presume to speak for those who died atop the World Trade Center. For one thing, citizens of more than 50 foreign countries, from Argentina to Zimbabwe, were killed on 9/11. Of the remainder, maybe some would be in favor of a flag-burning amendment; and maybe some would think that criminalizing disrespect for national symbols is unworthy of a free society."
ayup.
