Wouldn't re-enforcing the Alien and Sedition acts make it gutsier to criticise the government?

Yes, but the Constitution is about defending freedom, not making civil disobedience riskier.

Well, I'm not advocating it, I'm pointing out that it's counterintuitive.

It used to be that an area selected for redevelopment had to be declared "blighted" in order for this kind of thing to occur. That made sense -- the subordination of private property rights seemed reasonable if it was necessary to clear out a slum in order to make room for urban redevelopment. As a practical matter, you have to deal with the problem of the holdouts who want an exorbitant price because they can hold a major project hostage with their tarpaper shack. But now, there are apparently no restraints on the power of eminent domain. I'm getting a severe case of the willies.

Somehow I doubt that most people will risk a prison sentence and fine (say a year and 20,000) to burn a flag. If people are protesting Bush's policies why is it that they burn the American flag rather than a photo of Bush?

Just as society prohibits cross burning what argument can be made for flag burning? We are neither more tolerant nor a better society for allowing disrepect for the ideals of the nation. Such disrespect ultimately filters into society at large. Perhaps this is why our society is so much less civil than in the 50s.

Right. So go ahead and ban all speech that shows "disrespect for the ideals of the nation."

Fantastic idea.

And btw, there is nothing stopping them from burning a pic of Bush either. Nor should there be.

Eminent domain abuse

I think ThomasJackson was being sarcasting about the '50s being more civil. I hope.

Nope.

All I know is, the day they pass that flag-burning amendment, is the day that flag deserves a burning.
And I will yank the flag off the front of my house and torch it but good.

Bill:
Too bad you consider such an amendment to be so, hateful. Prior to 1989 when the Supreme Court casually ruled all flag protection laws illegal 48 states had such laws. So I guess this bad idea wasn't supported by most of the citizens or legal experts and of course resulted in the banning of all dissent prior to 1989.

People who could burn Bush's photo but substitute the American flag do so for a reason. I find it ridiculous anyone could make such an observation unless one disregards history and is selective in one's concerns.

Just to clarify the comment above from Stones Cry Out, Pfizer was not a party to either the use of eminent domain nor the lawsuit. It purchased the land for its facility. The development plan was the creation of the city of New London and its private Development Corporation, for land near the Pfizer facility.

Although Pfizer supported the plan as a complement to its facility, it took no formal position on the city's use of eminent domain and if the development proceeds, will not be a participant in it.

ThomasJackson-

Who said anything about "hateful?"

It's not hateful - it's "un-American."

Bill:
Since 48 states passed such laws exactly where would it be considered un-American? Massachusetts or the people's republic of Berekley?

Nope. The US. By your logic, any law passed by a large number of states would be a-ok. Given our history, obviously there would be exceptions.

I'm not insecure enough about the American flag that I need to criminalize its desecration.

What else should be criminalized? How about American flag print napkins? Oohh, what about dirty TV?!