Flag burning is not an issue of free speech.

[Guest]

I dont understand this a-historical point.  Free speech was traditionally held only to pertain to political matters.  Anything else was not subject to free speech exemptions.

Burning a flag is a pretty clear example of political speech.

[One of Many]

Burning the flag is NOT political speech.  Political speech is related to constructive debate on important issues, and which person or party represents the best course of action to address those issues.  It pertains to electing representatives to our governing body (legislature, executive officers), that will work at the direction of their constituents.

Burning the flag is destructive, belligerent and antagonistic.  It serves no constructive purpose, and does not warrant protection, as it does not serve the common good of the people; inciting to riot is a violation of law, and flag burning is associated with riotous actions.

[Jamisjockey]

Maybe it's the MTV generation in me, but this one is getting old.
If you can't contain yourself at the sight of a burning flag, and have to riot, there is something wrong with you.  Control yourself, and leave the radical flag burners alone.  Get over it.  Stop trying to limit what everyone else is doing and worry about your own world.  
I've lost all interest in this one.  Time to agree to strongly disagree.  Toodles.

[One of Many]

Jockey, once again you have twisted things 180 degrees from reality; it is the people burning the flags that are rioting - and this has been shown to be the case in many instances that occurred during the Hippie Protests against the Vietnam war, and other radical protests.

I doubt that you can find any instance of rioting by people that disagree with flag burning.

My world is a world where government places limitations on individual behavior for the common good; it is populated by hundreds of millions of people.  Your world, where people do whatever they want with no limitations, is populated with a very small number of people, fortunately.   Civilization flourishes when everyone knows the rules of polite social interaction, and abides by those rules.  Anarchy and chaos result from the lack of rules, and the lack of self discipline.

[Guest]

Burning the flag is destructive, belligerent and antagonistic.  It serves no constructive purpose, and does not warrant protection, as it does not serve the common good of the people

Being "constructive" and "serving the common good" are not prerequisites for political speech. Especially if your politics include a complete scrapping of any central form of government.

It is all besides the point, since it has been quite reasonaly pointed out that it isnt a speech issue anyways.

[The Rabbi]

No offense, Rabbi, as you're a learned and wise man, but I could give two poops about the USSC.  My opinions are based solely on what I believe to be a human right, not what some group of old fogies says I can say

OK, you subscribe to the RichYoung school of Constitutional interpretation: it means whatever I want it to mean, regardless of both legal tradition and precedent and the fact that the USSC is the ultimate arbiter of meaning.  Well, that's certainly one view.

[richyoung]

No offense, Rabbi, as you're a learned and wise man, but I could give two poops about the USSC.  My opinions are based solely on what I believe to be a human right, not what some group of old fogies says I can say

OK, you subscribe to the RichYoung school of Constitutional interpretation: it means whatever I want it to mean, regardless of both legal tradition and precedent and the fact that the USSC is the ultimate arbiter of meaning.  Well, that's certainly one view.

More accurately, it means WHAT IT SAYS IT MEANS - in the plain language in which it is written.  It also has a deliniated ammendment process - and "judicial fiat" is NOT one of the ways to ammend it.  The mere fact that 5 out of 9 men in black robes abdicate their duty does NOT change the Constitution.  Yes thats "one view" - it was the ONLY view until the current degenerate politcial situaion, coutesy of FDR...

[The Rabbi]

No offense, Rabbi, as you're a learned and wise man, but I could give two poops about the USSC.  My opinions are based solely on what I believe to be a human right, not what some group of old fogies says I can say

OK, you subscribe to the RichYoung school of Constitutional interpretation: it means whatever I want it to mean, regardless of both legal tradition and precedent and the fact that the USSC is the ultimate arbiter of meaning.  Well, that's certainly one view.

More accurately, it means WHAT IT SAYS IT MEANS - in the plain language in which it is written.  It also has a deliniated ammendment process - and "judicial fiat" is NOT one of the ways to ammend it.  The mere fact that 5 out of 9 men in black robes abdicate their duty does NOT change the Constitution.  Yes thats "one view" - it was the ONLY view until the current degenerate politcial situaion, coutesy of FDR...

So the Marshall court was wrong in Marbury v. Madison since there is no "plain language" about judicial review in USC.  I hadnt realized FDR appointed Marshall :rolleyes

[richyoung]

OK, you subscribe to the RichYoung school of Constitutional interpretation: it means whatever I want it to mean, regardless of both legal tradition and precedent and the fact that the USSC is the ultimate arbiter of meaning.  Well, that's certainly one view.

More accurately, it means WHAT IT SAYS IT MEANS - in the plain language in which it is written.  It also has a deliniated ammendment process - and "judicial fiat" is NOT one of the ways to ammend it.  The mere fact that 5 out of 9 men in black robes abdicate their duty does NOT change the Constitution.  Yes thats "one view" - it was the ONLY view until the current degenerate politcial situaion, coutesy of FDR...

So the Marshall court was wrong in Marbury v. Madison since there is no "plain language" about judicial review in USC.  I hadnt realized FDR appointed Marshall :rolleyes

Apples and oranges - what that ruling said is that other branches of the government cannot exceed their delegated powers - and that if they ATTEMPT to do so, they have not, in fact, passed a law that has to be obeyed.