Bloodless Coup

No. Just, No.

I wake this morning to discover, via the New York Times that the august US Senate (the deliberative, thoughtful half of our legislative branch) is within a single vote of amending the US constitution to ban the burning of the American flag.

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the committee, said the amendment was not meant to alter the Bill of Rights but to right an incorrect decision by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Specter said flag burning should not be considered speech protected by the First Amendment, but an action "designed to antagonize, designed to hurt," not "designed to persuade."

"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protecting speech, religion, press, assembly is inviolate," he said. "That is not to say the decisions of the Supreme Court have that same status."

Uh, no. This republic has stood for 222 years without the Constitution specifically banning the burning of the flag. We've fought multiple wars (including two hot world wars, and a larger cold war), survived several international economic depressions, witchhunts for various mythical internal subversives, and a major civil war without a Constitution that bans burning the flag. Now, however, we need to change that. Spector (head of the judiciary committee) puts forth the transparently absurd argument that burning the flag should be banned because is it designed to "antagonize" and "hurt", not "persuade". Last I checked, the First Amendment to the Constitution was pretty clear that all speech was protected (subject to the limits of libel and harm to others: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, for example), not just speech that "persuades". Your "antagonism" may be my "persuasion", and vice versa. The US Constitution protects both, and forces the government to avoid choosing between forms of arguments (thus, protecting free speech).

This is a transparently election-year move to shore up support for "values". I had thought that, perhaps, the US Constitution was beyond the bounds of election year tomfoolery. I was clearly mistaken. Fiddling with the Constitution for the sake of elections is a very dangerous road to walk down. And very difficult to turn around, once begun.

(This ends the reasonable, calm, non-profanity-laced portion of the post. Those with weak stomachs may want to cease reading at this point.)

What the FUCK. Fucking "values". Fuck "values". "Values" allowed us to enslave an entire race of people for a hundred years. "Values" allowed us to treat them as second-class citizens in law for another hundred. "Values" allowed us to lock up US Citizens 'cause they looked like Japs (thanks Roosevelt, and fuck Malkin while we're at it). "Values" allowed us to hunt for "Communists" without due process, the law, or any hint of reasonableness. "Values" allowed the fucking President of the United States to spy on his political opponents for his gain (fucking Nixon), and then be fucking rehabilitated years later, as if the cocksucker hadn't done anything worse than stealing fucking candy. This country was founded on LAWS, people, not fucking "values." LAWS fixed all those problems listed above, not fucking "values." If you pox-ridden flaming sacks of shit can't figure that out, then it's time to re-think term limits (except those are fucking unconstitutional, too, though that fucking can be fucking changed fucking easily it seems).

Keep your plague-ridden hands off the damn Constitution over fucking trivial matters, assholes. Once you've fucking figured out Iraq, the deficit, and healthcare, then we'll let you fucking talk for a while about fucking flag burning.