I'm inclined to be opposed to it, not because I'm in favor of desecrating the flag, but because I'm opposed to unnecessarily giving the government any more power than it already has.
Oddly enough, it seems that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, and the ACLU agree with me. Finding myself in agreement with that group concerns me, so maybe I'm missing something in my thought process here...
So, I'm issuing a plea to all my logically-gifted friends and acquaintances to straighten out my thinking on this issue, if it needs to be straightened out. Thanks in advance!
Edit: My friend Andrew emailed me his comments, since he's unable to actually get to my blog. He's given me permission to post his thoughts on the issue. Here they are:
I'm torn between the two sides of the debate. On the one hand, I would love for it to be illegal to burn the flag (or desecrate it, or whatever). On the other hand, I tend to object to such a trivial regulation being slapped onto the Constitution. I don't buy that it's free speech, but neither am I convinced that it's worth an amendment. More than anything, the whole question points out the stupidity of certain courts. It was a District Court that declared flag-burning "free speech," even though it certainly isn't the reason behind the "free speech" clause. Now, because a court has called the legislation unconstitutional, we must resort to actually amending the Constitution. Why don't we make an amendment instead that says judges who make dumb decisions can be removed by a majority vote of the Senate?
It is disconcerting to feel like I might be in the same camp as the flamin' liberals in the Senate, but with the current government's track record of gathering powers to itself, I wonder if might vote with them and against bigger government.
That'll be $.02.