Letting the People Decide: The Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Congress to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States : Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, Second Session, March 10, 2004
U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005 - 229 páginas
Comentarios de la gente - Escribir un comentario
No encontramos ningún comentario en los lugares habituales.
Otras ediciones - Ver todas
acts administration allow amend the Constitution American flag American Legion argument Authorizing believe Bill of Rights BRYANT budget called Chairman Chairman HATCH citizens Committee concern CONGRESS THE LIBRARY constitutional amendment debate decide decision defend Department expression fact Federal flag amendment flag burning flag desecration Flag Protection force freedom freedom of speech give hearing honor House important issue John John Andretti Johnson Judiciary Justice legislation letter LIBRARY OF CONGRESS majority March military National Office opportunity organizations pass patriotism person physical desecration political preserve President principles prohibit proposed amendment protect the flag question record represents resolution respect response rule Senator served speech stands statement statute Supreme Court symbol Texas Thank thing understand United values veterans vote Washington
Página 85 - At the same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Página 64 - But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order...
Página 69 - If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable...
Página 97 - One who loves the Union will love the State in which he resides, and love both of the common country and of the State will diminish in proportion as respect for the flag is weakened. Therefore a State will be wanting in care for the well-being of its people if it ignores the fact that they regard the flag as a symbol of their country's power and prestige, and will be impatient if any open disrespect is shown towards it.
Página 91 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Página 130 - ... varying attitudes and tastes for displaying something as ubiquitous as the United States flag or representations of it, it could hardly be the purpose of the Massachusetts legislature to make criminal every informal use of the flag. The statutory language under which Goguen was charged, however, fails to draw reasonably clear lines between the kinds of nonceremonial treatment that are criminal and those that are not.
Página 40 - The Flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
Página 96 - Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people — whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution, or flag burning.
Página 199 - Democrats — attitudes that would have seemed odd thirty years ago, when I worked for Senator Robert Kennedy, but that now seem to be taken for granted. I. ARGUMENTS ABOUT (SUPPOSED) EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: TRIVIALIZATION AND EXAGGERATION The central focus of argument against the flag amendment involves the (supposedly) likely effects of its ratification. Typically, these effects are — at one and the same time— trivialized and exaggerated.