(no subject)

[somedaybitch]

a 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:

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.

Comments

[themonkeycabal.livejournal.com]

the author confuses me.
Yeah, he lost me about halfway through his far too long ramble.

[sabaceanbabe.livejournal.com]

Steyn makes a helluva lot more sense.

I can't believe that there's even a question that we should have the right to burn the flag. Freedom of speech doesn't mean just opening your mouth and spouting off words. Just because some asshat -- and the fact that I think of them as an asshat -- burns the flag as a method of protest and someone else gets offended doesn't mean that the asshat shouldn't be allowed to do it. It's his right as an American citizen.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

sing it, sister

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

at what point did this rabble decide to allow someone to rule them, at what point do they follow a leader? What I see in Harris' article is the seeming ignorance of what representation means [obviously he is trying to persuade, so he leaves that bit out...]. There is a certain amount of, not too much respect for law, but agreement to allow the government to govern on a day to day basis. How you gonna stay together as anything without that? I won't say that some of the little logical steps along the way didn't get us someplace that we maybe wouldn't have wanted to go. As a society there NEEDS to be a group that can act in a much more UNILATERAL way, within the strictures of the agreement to govern. One of those agreements to govern is that there be a congress to make law for the entirety of the country. So when the Supremes kick it back at congress, there is a certain amount of 'you wanna fix this? then make/change the law'. On the other hand sometimes the interpretation of law is sticky, and what is apparent to a legal mind just doesn't make sense to us. Was the reading of the interstate commerce act too narrow, but also reaching? Or was this a way to kick it back and say, you had better make a national law for this, because it NEEDS to be national and not local.

So what Harris says about a kind of unilateral meddling is sort of disingenuous. One of the reasons we have a federal government insulated a bit from the citizens and from itself is so that the mobs WON'T rule, so that there WILL be a continuity of governance. Convenient that he doesn't say that. Flag burning is no different than burning a nasty letter, or mooning your congressman. As the other article says, THAT is strength, and yes a society of strong, common sense rules will forment it's own enemies, simply by existing. But it IS a national question for the Supremes because it is clearly the 5th. Regarding the medpot ruling, I DON'T agree with the Supremes, but I believe I have an idea why they did it. If there is a standing federal law about something, that is assumed to apply across the states, then allowing the States to say 'sorry, doesn't apply to me...' is the opening salvo in an argument that ultimately leads to secession. So what you must do is REPEAL the federal law or modify it, so that it no longer applies. Mayhap they pushed the button SO THAT CONGRESS WOULD GET OFF IT's COLLECTIVE rear and fix that. That is making the HUGE assumption that there IS a federal LAW and not a bureaucratic rule. If there is just a rule for this, then I think the whole is wrong.

All in all the why's and wherefores of law at that level is headache inducing, simply because the country is so frelling huge and crafting law that applies to 300 people is hard, much less 300 million people. We all have needs and someone in Iowa, where there is almost NO federal land, has a hard time understanding problems here, where fed owned land is like 75%...

hopefully, that makes some kinda sense... or I may be all wrong in the way I am thinking this.

AFD ;) wouldn't be the first time...

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

Regarding the medpot ruling, I DON'T agree with the Supremes, but I believe I have an idea why they did it. If there is a standing federal law about something, that is assumed to apply across the states, then allowing the States to say 'sorry, doesn't apply to me...' is the opening salvo in an argument that ultimately leads to secession.

states have a right to enact laws that are the will of the residents of their state. the Fed doesn't get to supercede that unless they can argue some compelling need under very narrow parameters. arguing the Commerce Clause for medicinal use of marijuana is utter bullshit.