If that is true, it's neither a big deal nor new. About ten years ago, The collective panties of the U.S. congress were in a collective wad over flag burning. Hippies had been burning U.S. flags in the 60's, states passed laws prohibiting it, and the Supreme Court politely asked the states "What part of 'free speech' are you having difficulty with?". Sort of, I think the vote was 5-4. So in a great big huff, congress decided they were going to amend the Constitution to prohibit flag burning. This was a great political issue, because if you said you were against the amendment, then you'd get accused of being pro-flag burning. Or maybe pro-hippy. I think somebody still introduces this bill at some point of each session, but people son't seem to care about it so much any more.
And there is a much older proposed amendment to the Constitution, the Titles of Nobility Amendment:
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
I say, let's compromise and come up with an amendment everyone can agree on. The 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution will read:
Gay people can not burn flags at their wedding ceremonies if they have accepted a title of nobility from a foreign power.
Remember, if you oppose this amendment, that means you are in favor of gays burning flags at their weddings after accepting a title of nobility from a foreign power. .
Oh and here is a less ridiculous view of a Constitutional amendment.
And if you think this entire post wasted a valuable minute of your life, and you're a guy, please go read about how Drinking Beer Prevents Prostate Cancer. (Thanks Malv)
No comments:
Post a Comment