Flag Burning and the Congressional Highlight Reel

Professor Rob Vischer of the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minneapolis has an interesting post about the recent flag burning amendment debate here, on the Mirror of Justice blog. I tend to agree with Rob that persistent efforts to amend the Constitution in this way are “a colossal waste of time.” Check out the Mirror of Justice blog for an interesting on-going conversation among a number of reasonably minded law professors with a range of perspectives about what it might mean to think about the law in light of Catholic legal theory.

One Response to “Flag Burning and the Congressional Highlight Reel”

  1. Mark Grannis Says:

    More activity on this front, according to the Borowitz Report:

    Constitutional Amendment Could Become Hot-Button Issue for November

    In what many political observers believe could become an effective wedge issue in the 2006 midterm elections, President George W. Bush today proposed a constitutional amendment banning marriage between a man and a flag.

    In a nationally televised address from the Oval Office, the president said that the proposed amendment was intended to protect two embattled American institutions: traditional marriage, and the American flag.

    “We must define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and not between a man and a flag,” Mr. Bush said. “Additionally, just as we seek to protect flags from being burned, we must protect them from being married.”

    The president’s proposal seemed intended to cause trouble among congressional Democrats, many of whom have no stated opinion on the issue of man-flag unions.

    But 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was quick out of the box in response to the president’s speech, telling reporters, “Before the end of the day, I intend to have at least three or four different positions on this issue.”

    On the other side of the aisle, Mr. Bush’s proposed amendment received immediate support from Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn), who suggested expanding its scope to ban marriage between a man and any inanimate object.

    “We should not only forbid marriage between a man and a flag, we should also forbid it between a man and an inflatable love-doll,” he said, adding quickly, “Not that I know about that sort of thing.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: