Burning the Flag as an Expression of Free Speech in U.S.

The essayist wants to take forward from his foes the right that he is defending when he backs the Court determination with respect to twingeing the stagger. He goes to an early(a) extreme when he leaps from defending reel-burning to suggesting that the same right applies to burning the Lincoln commemoration and the etiolate House. The militias ranting and raving in the nation straight off may have found a leader in the essayist.

The essay opens in a reasonable manner. The writer (the genuinely Joseph Goebbels was a Nazi leader who died decades ago) presents the Supreme Court decision straightforwardly, hence blatantly smears his foes by calling them "immoral." He never does fully or coherently present their position, exactly alone "condemns" them. More importantly, he entirely misunderstands the makeup itself, either turn out of ignorance or out of a desire to mislead and chagrin the presenter. He claims the Supreme Court decision cannot be changed, which is incorrect, because after Supreme Court decisions often alter previous decisions. He claims the Constitution cannot be changed, ignoring the Constitution's suffer allowances for amendments. Then he misstates the Constitution with respect to amendment, claiming that such amending cannot occur after 1808. In fact, the Const

Goebbels then argues fallaciously that the Flag Code of the get together States declares that we should "destroy the flag by burning it at gloaming" (Goebbels 4). This leaves out the part of the statement referring to an old or damage flag which should be destroyed in the proper manner. Goebbels then suggests that the Flag Code not only encourages burning the flag, but that it does so as a part of the Constitution. It is not a part of the Constitution.

I feel the essayist is correct in supporting the stand taken by the Supreme Court.

However, in a misguided effort to expand the burning of the flag issue to other political, legal and symbolic areas of concern, the essayist undermines his own program line and leaves the reader questioning whether the Supreme Court did bonk to the right decision in upholding a citizen's right to burn the flag. Although I believed in this right before I read the essay, the shrill, rabid, irrational extremism of the essayist's stand causes me to rethink that belief.

Finally, Goebbels makes another preposterous analogy---between the immortal of the Pledge of Allegiance to the paragon of the burning bush and the God Who burned Sodom and Gomorrah, concluding that "fire is God's mode of expression" (Goebbels 4). So are water and ice God's forms of expression. Should we then freeze the flag in protest?

Goebbels attacks as "paranoid alarmists" those who would suggest that other symbols could or should be burned---such as the Lincoln Memorial and the White House---and then he step-by-step moves into arguing that precisely such burnings could and should take place "if such an act would send a message of freedom to America and to the rest of the world" (Goebbels 3). His argument with respect to the burning of the Lincoln Memorial as a symbolic act protesting Lincoln's "killing thousands of people by unconstitutionally invading the southern states" is perhaps outlandish, although his support for that argument does at least touch upon the interesting cla
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.