by Matt Barr

Except

None of the 17 constitutional amendments after the Bill of Rights has actually been borne of Congress looking at the first 10 and saying, "wait -- that goes too far." One hopes, knowing Congress throughout its history to be an ineffectual, toad-like collection of refugees from the workforce, that part of the reason for this is that nobody would have stood for it. It's hard to believe previous Congresses didn't think they knew better; chances are, the better angels of their nature were actually wide-eyed, terrified hostages to the prospect of popular revolt, blinking "throw the bums out" in Morse code.

This one thinks it knows better and sees no realistic prospect of dis-election, and therefore, would like to amend the First Amendment with an "except" clause. Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech except. Except where national security might be at stake? In the hands of this Congress, this could be abused as thoroughly and easily as... it is now, come to think of it, but you could see some sensible patriot proposing that amendment for the First Amendment, the way things are going these days.

Except where someone's dignity as a person is harmed? How very European that would be; half the Supreme Court would wet itself. This would be ripe for misuse and overreach, too, more even than the national security business. But there is a perceived problem today with the coarseness of public discourse, and people are offended awfully easily. You could see some oafish do-gooder from the 13th District of New Brussels hot after the whiny woe-is-me vote drawing up an amendment to that effect.

Except if Gwen Stefani has a new record out? Principles are one thing, but a lot of people could get behind that.

But no, this Congress wants to protect us from burning U.S. flags, those fiery obstacles you're always dodging on the walk from the office to Starbucks every morning, and that tie up the commute as they accidentally set Tauruses afire during bumper to bumper traffic. Those terrible displays you can barely sit through a local newscast today without hearing about and seeing footage of Old Glory ablaze. Your eyes! Look away!

This blog is getting sick and tired of Congress trying to solve actual problems ineffectively; whoever came up with the idea that whatever's actually wrong with your life can be solved by a bill originating in the House of Representatives ought to himself be set on fire, but there it is. It's too much for this blog to take when Congress starts solving problems that don't actually exist, in ways that will be utterly ineffective, and that take a black Sharpie -- the thickpointed kind -- to the First Amendment.

This proposed Amendment will increase flag burning, including by this blog, I suspect, but the point is that that's really not hard to do, insofar as it would be increasing from there being no actual flag burning going on to a couple dozen libertarians being, for once, roused to action. Not that I expect people to stop trying to solve problems if their efforts might make them worse in the short term, but generally, you're talking about things that aren't irredeemably stupid.

If passed, the Amendment and laws passed thereunder will be even more toothless than most of its supporters. John Scalzi explained why better than I ever could, including helpful illustrations. And now I see he's sensibly resurrected his fine post. Please do read it and come back here and explain how you plan to enforce this nonsense.

And to address an imaginary problem in a completely useless way, this Congress proposes to take a bite out of the First Amendment. You know why? Because we'll stand for it. Half of you reading this are in favor of this idiocy and are offended that I may have called you toothless, 25 percent don't ever plan to burn a flag and don't much care, and 25 percent are looking for pictures of Lisa Ann Walter.

Happy Fourth of July 300 years early.

UPDATE: The good news is that the Amendment failed in the Senate by one vote, 66-34. The bad news is that the Amendment failed in the Senate by one vote.

Browse books from Amazon.com: