Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 05:43:48 -0400
From: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
Subject: Finkelstein-Mitchel-Totty On Re: John Mitchel on Flag Burning
To: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)


Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:45:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@MIT.EDU>
To: freematt@coil.com
Subject: Re: John Mitchel on Flag Burning
Cc: Mitch07Ohio@cs.com

[John Mitchel wrote:]
>  First, the liberals want it both ways -- they want to make desecrating

>  their gay rights flag a hate crime.


        Ick. Matt, here's an example for you. I don't have to be gay
to be annoyed by a Libertarian-type candidate using gay-baiting to
justify censorship. I know of absolutely no serious movement by
"the liberals" to "make desecrating their gay rights flag" a "hate
crime". Someone, somewhere, on the planet, might have said something
to that effect. To compare it to Congressional bills to amend the
Constitution is sheer demagoguery.

>  To make a long story short, the U.S. Supreme Court failed by even

>  hearing these cases in the first place, because it's now a State's

>  Rights issue (10th Amendment).


        This is what I call "crank-Constitutionalism". The Constitution
was amended, after a war which tore the country apart, to limit the
abilities of States to infringe on certain freedoms. The free-speech
aspects of the First Amendment have been extended to the states via
the *14th* Amendment.

>  In effect the U.S Supreme Court has created a constitutional crisis

>  (1st VS, 10th Amendment contradiction), and the only check and

>  balance left on the Supreme Court is to amend, a process made

>  available by you guessed it, the U.S. Constitution.


        No. The amendment already happened, more than a century ago.
There was a constitutional crisis over the states vs. the federal
government, it led to a war, war's long over. A candidate for Congress
really should know this, though to be fair we've even had Presidents
who seemed not to be familiar with the events (or, more negatively, to
want to refight them ...).

__
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  sethf@mit.edu  http://sethf.com

###

From: Mitch07Ohio@cs.com
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:07:56 EDT
Subject: Re: John Mitchel on Flag Burning
To: sethf@mit.edu
CC: freematt@coil.com

Seth,

Although I appreciate your response, especially the point on the 14th
Amendment, you have taken some statements out of context, notably by failing
to consider that my disdain for the 16th Amendment runs deeper than my
support for an Amendment to protect the American Flag.  But that's O.K. too,
since our opinions on these important issues have been formed by our life
experiences.  I'm sure you can understand that my 26 years in the military,
where I have experienced the loss of good friends in the line of duty, have a
significant impact on my patriotism, allegiance to the Republic, respect for
Old Glory, and loyalty to my commissioning oath of office, which in part
reads, "to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign
and domestic."  Thank you for challenging my logic.  Although I have not
changed my opinion in any way, I believe I have a better understanding of why
I feel the way I do.

Cheers,

Mitch

P.S. I suppose bringing the gay rights flag into the argument may have been a
stretch, but understand I did not fabricate the part about gay rights
activists advocating "hate crime" status to desecrating the gay rights flag.
That actually happened here in Ohio.  By the way, I believe any crime is a
manifestation of hate, and all citizens are memers of the same protected
class regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

###

X-Sender: echeghlon@pop.seanet.com
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:54:10 -0700
To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
From: "E.J. Totty" <echeghlon@seanet.com>
Subject: Re: John Mitchel on Flag Burning

        Matt,

        Interesting position.
        Allow me to make my own position known as well, in so many words.
        What is a flag?
        (1) A piece of cloth the identifies a respective side in any conflict.
        (2) A piece of cloth that sinifies a particular meaning.
        (3) A piece of cloth that facilitates identification with 
whatever . . .

        A piece of cloth.
        An amendment to sanctify a design, on a piece of cloth?
        That grown men and woman would sink to the level of playing
stupid and adolescent games over a mere piece of cloth, with a particular
design, causes me to wonder of their ability to really cogitate in a serious
manner.

        Maybe it would be a better thing to dispose of the flag altogether,
and merely rely upon an arbitrary design, configured to be nothing more
than a carefully thought out and recognizable meaning -- in places of conflict.
        In times of peace, there is no place for a flag, not even at, or around
federal property.

        I look at it this way: if you leave yourself open to attack upon a
principle 'object', then somebody will do just that. If you have no 
'object' that
has any meaning, or for which will invite attack, then what the hel are they
going to attack? Cowards attack the weak and undefended. What can an
inanimate piece of cloth do to protect itself? Who cares if anyone burns a
piece of cloth? Just what are they proving anyway? That they are cowards?
        Who cares?
        If they burn the damned flag at midnight in a secret mass, attended
by the members -- not unlike Satanist -- in a secret ritual, who's gonna know?
        What's next? Flag burning busts?
        INSANE!!!!

        But, to top this off is the crazy idea of a flag which represents the
idea of liberty, being placed off-bounds in the expression of that 
liberty? That,
is like the Catholic Church banning the burning of the bible, or the cross.
        They had a Spanish Inquisition. Shall we have the same?

        What's missing here is an understanding that freedom encompasses
the whole broad range of expression, including the burning of 
banners, including
banners that have significance.
        The burners are, after all, burning their own property . . .
        Who cares?

        Want to stop the burning of the flag? Entice the burners to do just
that. Cheer them on. Congratulate them. Invite them to do it.
        When something doesn't have impact value, it doesn't resonate.
        If it doesn't resonate, it isn't worth the time of day to do. 
Like burning
a bra. Who the hell cares?

        All this, you understand, from a veteran with 24 years Naval Service.
        The US Navy taught me three things: Get a life, get real, and quite
bitching about the really small stuff. When you sink to such a puerile level
as to whine about really insignificant things, you leave yourself open to be
attacked constantly by those who have nothing better to do than to do 
just that.

        My two cents worth.

-- 
In Liberty,
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
Henri Guisan, the Swiss General Officer, who headed the Swiss
Federation's militia army during the period of World War Two, was
perhaps the Twentieth Century's William Tell. His uniting stand against
the defeatist propaganda from the Swiss Federal Council, and the
external threats of the Axis powers, virtually assured that any military
entanglement with the Swiss, would be an exercise in futility. The Swiss
Army, composed of the citizenry proper, amounts to almost all of the
citizens trained to arms: the Swiss nation is an army unto itself.
The crest of the Guisan family, bears this inscription in Latin:
It recte nihil timet ("Those who do justly fear nothing").
Curtesy of the "New American," March 27, 2000, Vol. 16, No. 7.
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=

ET


Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/