Individual rights is taking a beating

[stegmakk]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property
Might not seem like much but this gives precedence for Gov't to take away individual property, NOT for Gov't use, but for PRIVATE development under the guise of public development.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/civil_liberties
We already have a thread on the above topic...again...I would never burn the flag as it IS a symbol that many vets that have fought for our liberties hold dear...but the point is it is just a symbol and it is free speech...where do we then draw the line? no articles criticizing the govt?

[Thrillhouse]

The law says that the government can buy your property for public use, not public benifit. If your house is in the way of a new highway, it sucks, but you are going to have to move. But to extend that government power to allow the powers that be to force you out of your home so they can sell the land to a developer is the wrong way to interperpt the 5th. Public use doesn't mean public benefit.
According to this ruling, the City of D.C. could force the President out of the White House, sell the house and land to a developer who would open a bed and breakfast.

Props to Sandy, Bill, Charlie, and Tony for getting this one right.

[stegmakk]

I agree Thrill...
too bad the good guys got the short end in that 5-4 ruling...

[AZReDWiNG]

I said it once, and I will say it again.

FREEDOM IS ON TEH MARCH

[Thrillhouse]

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

ha-HA!

[stegmakk]

HA-HA!
Oh hell...even I would throw down some donations to make that possible...

[AZReDWiNG]

This better happen.

[Chaminademid]

I dont get the whole thing with burning the flag

i laughed when terrorists did it because its supposed to be a sign of respect.

[OutBurst]

At least Sandra Day O'Connor is on the people's side.

[Thrillhouse]

This better happen.

This guy was just trying to make news.

It won’t happen because…

At least Sandra Day O'Connor is on the people's side.

"The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." –Justice O'Connor in her dissenting opinion (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf)


I’m sure Justice Souter not only knows the five selectmen in Weare, NH, but he probably plays golf with them. Besides, any town that a Supreme Court Justice calls home almost certainly doesn’t need any economic development.

When conservatives are jumping up and down and screaming until we’re blue in the face about activist judges legislating from the bench, this is what we’re talking about.

[lax save man]

we cant burn the flag !!!!!! i dont care how bad u think the governent is doing its part pf our country. and freedom of speach is a right u r corrocet but just because i can walk in to a movie theater a yell fier does not mean it is right or ok for me tod do

[roycegracie47]

we cant burn the flag !!!!!! i dont care how bad u think the governent is doing its part pf our country. and freedom of speach is a right u r corrocet but just because i can walk in to a movie theater a yell fier does not mean it is right or ok for me tod do

Yelling fire in a crowded theater wouldn't quite go over in court as free speech, not even with Johnny Cochran's famed Chewbacca defense. This issue is the right of American protestors ie those who most likely view themselves as Stay at Home Heroes/Conciencous(sp?) Objectors and the many others who do not support this Presidency (or any other) to display their "disgust" of American policies done in the name of our freedoms, ie what the flag represents not the flag itself.

[lax save man]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater wouldn't quite go over in court as free speech, not even with Johnny Cochran's famed Chewbacca defense. This issue is the right of American protestors ie those who most likely view themselves as Stay at Home Heroes/Conciencous(sp?) Objectors and the many others who do not support this Presidency (or any other) to display their "disgust" of American policies done in the name of our freedoms, ie what the flag represents not the flag itself.
i was not saying literaly i was using it in the hypothetical. and wat im trying to say is just because we can does not mean we hav ter right to

[roycegracie47]

No we do have the right. What seperates people doing it from people who don't is their personal definition of common sense. To someone making the choice to burn the flag as a statement agains America/American policies is still their right under the first ammendment and an active choice. To someone making the choice to walk into a crowded theater, yell "fire", thereby inciting panic doesn't really fall under the same guise. There is no ammendment saying they can't yell fire in a crowded theater (however I still believe that with your hypothetical you could argue it as free speech under the same notion as arguing burning a flag as free speech), and they have every right to do so, despite the consequences.

[LowRida]

The fact that an amendment was even proposed against burning flags shows either A.) The government thinks the common American has no common sense of what is right and wrong or B.) The majority of Americans really have no common sense of what is right and have no pride in their country. I do agree though that people have the right to burn the flag if they choose, however senseless an act it is, as long as it is non-violent. This case is similar to the American Nazi Party wanting to protest in a predominantly Jewish town in the 80's, which the courts allowed the Party to do so.

[TheKOB]

I agree with you guys totally. If the government is going to take land for the public good (dams and roads are the ones that leap to mind first), fine. Although this might get rid of a lot of inner city slums, and Lord knows I hate minorities.

As for the burning the flag issue, it's a right of free speech. That being said, I don't see how any true american would ever burn the flag if their parents taught them what it means (or what it should mean). It doesn't mean the Congress, the President, the war in Iraq, Guantanamo, etc. It means this country's history. It means Lewis and Clark, the fall of the iron curtain, the Alamo, D Day, march of tears, Lady Liberty, 9/11, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, catching bj's in the oval o, etc. If you can't find one good thing in that, then go ahead and burn it....it's your right. But if you do burn it, what the hell are you doing living here in the first place? Keep in mind that a section of something doesn't represent the whole, and all of America is represented by the flag.

[roycegracie47]

On the subject at hand, with emminent domain gone I know this made the DC stadium board (and therefore Major League Baseball) happy as they can get the new stadium on the waterfront without the opposition they would have faced in order to move the Nats from RFK (which would make the United happy in getting the stadium back).

[TheKOB]

Sports teams needing new stadiums are usually full of b.s. in terms of convincing the city that they should build anyways. I'll put the whole thing a new forum...

[roycegracie47]

Yes but as one living in the DC area, in order to get this team the DC council and Stadium borad were having a tough sell to the city council in order to get the Nats in there. As a result they almost lost the right to the team on several occasion and if they cannot produce a suitable plan for the stadium, Selig will yank the team (and on my tangent about making people happy...Peter Angelos would be extremely happy). As a result this has become a big center of contention for site locations...which now the investors don't have to worry as they can just pick and build. Full of b.s, of course, how else do you convince people what you want, serious discousre won't always win out to chicanery and subterfuge (also tom foolery and shenanigans may apply as necessary).

[Frndlefire]

Exactly, we cannot start illegalizing certain demonstrations of the freedom of speech just because they are particularly offensive.

[AZReDWiNG]

I agree with you guys totally. If the government is going to take land for the public good (dams and roads are the ones that leap to mind first), fine. Although this might get rid of a lot of inner city slums, and Lord knows I hate minorities.


You forgot the /sarcasm tags. I think.


As for the burning the flag issue, it's a right of free speech. That being said, I don't see how any true american would ever burn the flag if their parents
taught them what it means (or what it should mean).


It's an excersize in the First Amendment! To protest when you're unhappy is the American way.


It doesn't mean the Congress, the President, the war in Iraq, Guantanamo, etc. It means this country's history. It means Lewis and Clark, the fall of the iron curtain, the Alamo, D Day, march of tears, Lady Liberty, 9/11, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, catching bj's in the oval o, etc. If you can't find one good thing in that, then go ahead and burn it....it's your right. But if you do burn it, what the hell are you doing living here in the first place? Keep in mind that a section of something doesn't represent the whole, and all of America is represented by the flag.

This depends on your interpretation of the flag. The flag to many, myself included, is a symbol of the current administration, current policy, and the way things are run. If I'm unhappy with it, I would protest and torch the symbol of the current administration, current policy, and the way things are run. The administration represents all of America as well, so one can't say that burning the flag is desecrating ALL of America when I'm just unhappy with the administration.

The America I used to know is one that was "Home of the Free, Land of the Brave". We have degenerated into giving up liberty for more security (something Ben Franklin told us NOT to do) and passing the buck.

[stegmakk]

I would never burn the flag...but I don't think it should be protected.

It irks me though to see the hypocracy in many people..."don't ever burn the flag"...really? that is how we are SUPPOSED to destroy it with dignity...as well as the same people saying "don't burn it" probably have a half tattered one flying from their home/office...

I learned about the code of keeping the flag and how to properly handle it...I agree more with free speech...but if you are gonna give me an argument about not burning it and respecting it make sure you know what you are talking about...ie truly respecting it and not just jumping on the patriotic bandwagon

from http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sup_01_4_10_1.html
(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
(c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
(e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
(f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
(g) 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.
(h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

and freedom of speach is a right u r corrocet but just because i can walk in to a movie theater a yell fier does not mean it is right or ok for me tod do

actuall, this isnt protected by the 5th. i beleive it is considered slander (correct if i'm wrong about the technicalities) and since it would a)put people in danger, b) cost public services unnecessary time and money, or c) all of the above, it is therefore illegal, and you will be fined and/or sent to jail for doing it.

[Frndlefire]

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
and with the fourth of july just around the corner... my god... how many companies could be burned at the stake for this... [b]but they are patriotic!!![/quote]

actuall, this isnt protected by the 5th. i beleive it is considered slander (correct if i'm wrong about the technicalities) and since it would a)put people in danger, b) cost public services unnecessary time and money, or c) all of the above, it is therefore illegal, and you will be fined and/or sent to jail for doing it. It's not slander, but yes, it is illegal and not protected by freedom of speech because of those reasons you stated.

[moondog]

Privacy is gone, Gone, GONE.

[freestylewalkin]

america is caving into a small groups interests and in doing that they are putting ppl into boxes that results in favoring a certain box of ppl altough its sad its what i said in another thread the decline of American civilization