Yeah, we need to re-elect Chafee why again?

Ed, I’m aware I missed Bennett in my quick scan of “yeas” and that info has been added. Thanks. Also, it’s true that the Amendment itself doesn’t prohibit flag burning, but that it does allow Congress to prohibit flag burning if it so decides. What that means is that Congress can make it illegal to burn the flag and not be contra-constitutional in doing so. It also means that if at some future point the majority of Congress thinks it should be ok to burn the flag, they can either revoke any existing law or write one that says its OK. The idea was to take away the unconstitutional option from the courts. Finally, the fact that Congress has supported the ability to ban flag burning with such numbers indicates to me that an actual law wouldn’t be far behind once/if an Amendment was ratified. “would the majority of your state vote to amend the Constitution in such a way? If no, was Chafee really out of line with the majority of Rhode Islanders??” Finally, this poll released on June 3, 2006 seems to counter the above. The survey queried 501 adults 18 years of age and older living in private households in the state of Rhode Island and was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, NJ. When asked about the importance of making desecration of the U.S. flag illegal, 80 percent felt it was somewhat to extremely important to make it against the law.The survey also revealed that 78 percent thought that members of the House and Senate who may personally oppose the amendment should vote in favor of it anyway so that “we the people” can decide the flag issue. Additionally, the survey revealed that 66 percent of those questioned would not vote for someone who is… Read more »

Andrew,
Explain to me, why does Senator Chafee not believe campaign “speech” is protected by the Constitution?
I am currently enrolled in law school and one of my interests is first-amendment law. I’d like to hear what you have to say because the issue is a complicated one and I’m pretty sure I can refute whatever you contend.
Nick

Andrew, Since Nick Foley is MIA I take it on myself to categoricaly reject your argument. Apologies for any typoes–my mind is quicker than my fingers. Unlike the others who post on this board (i.e., Stretch, Fred Sanford, Will, BootyHunter, Bobby Olivieria) who have remarkably quick fingers and astoundingly slow minds. Times have changed since the Founders penned and the individual states ratified the Constitution. Today’s workers manipulate information, not iron or wood, for the most part. As language and information help form the bedrock of our nation, the government that the Constitution creates moderates a vast number of activities that take place through the medium of “speech.” Our 21st century information-based workplace, just as the older industrial workplace, requires the enactment of community standards attempting to ensure, for example, a minimizaion of anti-competitive restraints, the accuracy of commercial information, the absence of discrimination, the protection of health, the environment, the consumer, and so forth. Laws that reflect our community standards obviously effect–or abridge–speech. For example, pharmaceutical companies cannot lie about health risks associated with their products, employers cannot state that they prefer to employ certain ethnicities over others, etc. These are good laws, most would agree, but they are laws that restrict certain types of speech. If libertarian first-amendment standards were to apply across the board, they would prevent a democratically elected government from creating necessary regulation. On the other hand, if first amendment standards were weakened too severely, the Constitution would not offer sufficient protection for the free exchange of ideas necessary to maintain the health of our democracy. It is obvious that we must strike a balance in limiting speech. This balance must allow the free exchange of ideas necessary in a Democracy, but allow limitations that prevent abuses of speech and hamstring our abillity to govern… Read more »

Adam Smith is a little rude but I think I agree with him. Soneone said he is a Professor of Transgender Studies? I don’t understand that at all. Andrew, thanks for outlining your points.

The second thing was to ask Nick to stop double-posting! (Just kidding).

Adam, 1. See Marc’s comment about George Soros. I would add a tweak to your hypothetical billionaire’s running off a million dollars worth of campaign literature. Suppose that billionaire happens to own a newspaper; what then? What constitutes a newspaper? Who counts as a reporter? I suppose we could pass laws designed to ensure equal time, but the problem with such micromanaged schemes is as Marc suggests: the powerful are able to find routes around them (indeed, one suspects the loopholes are built into the regulation), while the average person is made even more powerless. 2. The Constitutional protection of flag burning provides a case in point for one of those loopholes: the concept was enshrined by an unelected judiciary — not the people’s elected representatives. In that context, I find this comment of yours curious: An amendment against [flag burning] limits our abililty to express our dissatisfaction with the government and that is just a terrible precedent to set. Whom or what does the flag represent? I would argue — given our historical ideals — that the flag actually represents America’s peculiar form of nationalism: pluralistic cooperation. Must the participants in such a necessarily fragile construct accept the rejection of its unifying symbol? Surely “community standards” can include a statement that a violent rejection of our one bit of common symbolism will not be tolerated (especially if you believe it to be within the range of acceptable restrictions of speech to bar employers from expressing a preference for employees who represent a particular culture). This is pure educated speculation on my part, but I would suggest that, rather than tracking the donations to political candidates, people are more likely to “become less willing to participate in the political process” if they feel that they are absolutely barred from achieving… Read more »

“Chafee blogger” I am not in any way a “Chafee blogger”. I have no or little use for him. “Lets see, the Cranston teacher, police and firefighter pensions are set by state statute so you would have to change the statute to have 401k plans.” He could have made it an issue, thus putting it out there for discussion. Eventually this is the ONLY answer to the gold plated pensions of our “royalty” in RI-the public employess. “got 20% co-share from municipal workers” Come on! This is the kind of Laughey doubltalk that has those in Cranston saying NOBODY’S LAFFEYNG NOW. The co-pay was imposed on the handfull of non-union municipal workers. 90% of the workers are members of our “royal” municipal unions and after 4 years of Laughey they are paying exactly ZERO for their gold-plated health coverage. “It would be logical to presume that Laffey is stronger in Cranston than he was in 2004” Please, look at the pathetic number of signs for Laffey compared to last time. “Mike” may have voted in the Sept 2004 primary but it was probably for Garry Reilly” I personally got about 2 dozen people who never voted in a Rep. primary out to vote for Laughey in 2004. He stabbed us in the back. At a minimum he could have stayed in office 4 more years and stopped the unions and not illegally giving city property to Guatamala to serve himself. Then he could have run for governor in 2010 on a platform of 401K pensions for ALL state and municipal workers-the only hope for Rhode Island to avoid looming default. Those of us in Cranston who have seen “what he does, not what he says” would rather go in November with a principled sleaze who has a chance to win… Read more »

Mike/Chafee blogger:
Laffey did try to make changes that would allow all municipalities to save money. It was the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2005. Mayor Laffey and his admininstration got together with other municipalities and put together legislation that would remove or change laws that render local communities defenseless against rising costs. That bill died in committee thanks to our Democrat legislature. Laffey held town meetings all around the state trying to drum up support for it. He was talking about it on every radio program, including his own.
Regarding signs. I think that short bus you’re riding on has strayed off into another state. No one has more signs up in RI than Laffey, they’re everywhere! Chafee has none!
Get your tongue off the glass and ask Mr. Bus Driver to take you back to RI.

Would that be Mike Reilly, Mike Garabedian, or Mike Jackvony? 🙂
Might I remind you that Laffey has had a 7 to 2 Democratic City Council to work with? Despite what you seem to imply, Laffey is not a dictator, and can not make law by fiat. I’m still amazed he’s gotten as much done as he has, considering what he had to work with over there. Do you think those union bought and paid for hacks would even for one moment entertain doing something that would put them on the outs with their union bosses?
Laffey has turned his city around like probably no other leader has done in this country, in so short a span of time. Laffey took the lead, and put the city back on a very sound fiscal footing. He did what he said he would do, which was to save the city he grew up in. He stated from the beginning, that he wasn’t looking to stay there for a long time, just long enough to fix what the democrats had broken. Serving two terms is enough, and sets a good example that other municipal leaders should follow.
A Republican friend from out of state, after hearing Laffey speak at an event, asked me “Why’s Laffey running for US Senate? He should be running for President!”