Much Ado About Nothing? What Should Be The Priority?

Opening a Constitutional Convention is a very "Big Thing."

Thomas Jefferson said: ''I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered, and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.''

Jefferson was right. Amending the Constitution is a serious thing. Article V of the United States Constitution provides that amendments to the Constitution can be proposed in two ways—by Congress or by constitutional convention. After an amendment is proposed by either method, it must be ratified by the State legislatures or State conventions in three-fourths of the States (currently 38) to become a part of our Constitution.

The second method of proposing amendments is triggered upon the applications or petitions of two-thirds of the State legislatures. Under this method, after Congress receives the applications, Article V provides that Congress shall call a constitutional convention to propose constitutional amendments.

As you can clearly see, a very serious process. And one must pick and choose our battles.

What do I mean by this?

When we open a constitutional convention we are setting a precedent: specifically, if we open a CC for flag burning, then why not a CC over rights for pedophiles? The door is opened and I fear for the hordes and masses that will want to walk through.

Would you rather open a CC over flag burning, or over the definition of marriage and/or English as the national language?

Fighting the fight over flag burning impresses me minimally.

I have seen little written on this and suspect I may take some heat over my stance. But in terms of picking one's fight, I'll take on the marriage and English issue(s) before I'll make an issue over flag burning.

Particularly when, per tradition, burning the flag is the approved method of disposing of an old or tattered flag. Shall we possibly open Pandora's Box over the intent and mental attitude when one burns a flag? Yes, yes, I fully well realize the clear issues of respect vs. lack of respect; but current national law is that burning a flag is a matter of self-expression and free speech. So has the SCOTUS declared in their 1989 and 1990 rulings. I agree with Diane Feinstein when she said that flag burning is an act and not a method of speech -- despite the SCOTUS opinions.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate yesterday fell a single vote short of approving a constitutional amendment designed to ban flag burning, in the closest vote to date on an issue that Republicans hope will motivate conservative voters to go to the polls this fall.

Sixty-six senators voted in favor -- three more than the last time the Senate took up the measure, in 2000, but one short of the two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments.

However, in my opinion, creation of an amendment against flag burning minimizes the larger social issues I have addressed above -- and opens the door to any number of conehead ideas proffered by the Cultural Changers of our society. There are so many places I do not want us to go under the guise of a constitutional convention.

To me, there are larger and more important issues that likely cannot be addressed in any other fashion than an amendment -- such as marriage defined as that union between one man and one woman.

BZ