Debate Rounds (3)
Round 2: Con counter argument Pro rebuttal
Round 3: Pro closing argument Con closing argument
In the rebuttal phase please restrain your argument to refuting my points I will do the same.
To burn the American flag is to desecrate a symbol of freedom and American pride which hundreds of thousands have lost their lives for. However the freedom which the flag symbolizes, while derived from self-evident, natural rights is legally enshrined in the constitution and the bill of rights. Of specific relevance to this argument is the first amendment's freedom of speech/expression which allows any and all non-violent speech. To burn the flag may be a desecration but to criminalize this non-violent expression is a repudiation of all it stands for.
"The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag."- Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist 
We can see here that the Supreme Court's Dissenting Opinion has shown and in state that the Court has no right to overrule the laws of what is legal in the majority of the states. Now this Court Case was invalid and in an earlier ruling we can see that in the Supreme Court Case LA V Taxpayers for Vincent and in the case they found that, "the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to employ every conceivable method of communication at all times and in all places." Meaning that the Flag burning and desecration is NOT Constitutional as the First Amendment DOES NOT cover this type of free speech. Not only that, but the case threatens Federalism as the states will gradually work for legalization. This will create less and less resentment over time. For exampe we can see that the Gay Marriage issue vs. the Abortion issue that both were hot topics. The thing is that Abortion was legalized all at one time vs. Gay Marriage's gradual legalization. We can see that the change in the legalization is something that created a huge problem as many people don't find problems with gay marriage, but Abortion to them is dangerous and that's on the grounds of destruction of State's Rights. As I shown earlier in the round that we need to leave this legislative authority to the states. For the Supreme Court was right to strike down the Federal law, but it had NO right to strike down state law. We must realize that the State's Supreme Courts are independent from the Federal Supreme Court and that the State Supreme Court must affect State Law and only state law as the Federal Courts can only affect Federal Goverment. 
1. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu...)
2. G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking, 6th ed. (Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2012), 37 and 139.
sonofthehound forfeited this round.
sonofthehound forfeited this round.
All points extended.
Please vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.