I immolate my US flag up the moment it becomes illegal to do so. It deserves burning on that day.

Laugh at me if you want. I'll probably be pretty solemn.

SarahW, while I can understand the concern over this stupid amendment, this country, being comprised of humans, has certainly done stupid things before, and will do them again. This would be just one more stupid thing. But these stupid things are not the ultimate measure of America.

The flag will no more deserve to be burned after the amendment than before. The flag is an enduring symbol of what America was, is, and will be. Our flag is, in a sense, even a symbol for itself.

To me, burning the flag is and will always be, burning the history and concept of America in effigy - just as is done on a daily basis in the middle east.

My suggestion, if you (like me) don't like the amendment, burn it. Doing so would be appropriate and accurate and in my mind even be considered patriotic and all American. Burning the flag is neither.

I am sorry but do you folks realize that 48 states had flag burning bans till the Supreme Court casually trampled people's rights in 1989 outlawing them? As far as I am concerned people who argue that this is some lessening of our rights are ignorant of our history and what this nation stands for. How were any less free with these laws?

How was the nation less tolerant of political dissent? Folks who argue against this amendment do not argue for freedom of political dissent they argue for the right to do whatever they wish when they wish as long as they can cloak it as political dissent.

Tell us why you cannot burn crosses; paint swastikas, or thrash the Tomb of the Unknown soldier or Washington Monumeent as political dissent? There are some actions that go beyond the pale. If the American people say it isn't that's fine by me but those that say the American people shouldn't have that option have all ready demonstrated their position.

till the Supreme Court casually trampled people's rights in 1989 outlawing them?

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.

Tell us why you cannot burn crosses; paint swastikas, or thrash the Tomb of the Unknown soldier or Washington Monumeent as political dissent?

Because those acts are considered vandalism and trespass? And you probably CAN burn crosses, if it's your cross, on your property, and you're not violating fire codes in your locale.

Also, the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown would bayonet you.

Bill:
Sorry you can't burn a cross on your own property according to the Supreme Court. I am in a quandry why do you find it acceptable for the guards at the Tomb of the Unknowns to bayonets you for exercising your right to dissent and then appalaud flag burning.

And when you say Congress say make no law, remind again about how they passed campaign finance reform and abridge political free speech, hmmmm.

I love you wonderfully lucid explaination of why laws that existed for over 100 years were found to be an abridgement of free speech. So eloquent, so detailed, so like the Supreme Court.

My concern is simply why are some forms of dissent considered okay while others are out of bounds. The inconsistency demonstrated here only atests to the lack of grounding and education of many commenting without a firm knowledge of either our history nor political process.