Burning the Flag of the United States of America Should Be Legal.

Hello everyone, and thank you, Skep, for inviting me to debate you on this subject. As you all have read, my opponent has suggested that burning the American flag, for the purpose of protest, is protected by the first amendment's free speech clause. I disagree. I believe burning the flag, in protest, is treasonous and therefore not protected. First, lets examine what the free speech clause does protect. It is important to understand the context in which this and the following nine articles of amendments were created and ratified. When the Constitution was being debated for ratification within the individual states, many citizens of those states voiced concern that a) too much authority was being asked to be given to the new federal government, or b) the provisions in the Constitution could be construed to give the new government more authority than was intended and agreed upon. Most states came to a compromise which was that they would ratify the document on the presumption that the first Congress would introduce a "Bill Of Rights" addressing the concerns that the states had. Yet, as Hamilton had argued in his article Federalist Paper #84, "...bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects,..." and are of no use to the document proposed. We were ratifing the authority "We The People" were granting to the United States, not asking for protection of certain liberties against it. In other words, we were telling the government what authority it will have, not bargaining authority away from it. So the first Congress, instead of drafting a bill of rights which was contrary to the philosophy that the new government was created on, presented to the states "furthur declaritory and restrictive clauses" to be amended to the Constitution. In other words, reiterations that these powers were not granted to the United States in Art.I, and more importantly, all authority not granted to the united states is to be left to the states, irregardless of whether it was specifically enumerated in the articles of amendment. See Amndts. IX and X. So the free speech clause of the first amendment reiterates that the federal government was granted no authority to abridge the freedom of speech. I believe most of us agree on the importance of this natural right in that it protects dissent and unpopular sentiment. So the question, it seems to me, is whether burning the flag is a form of expression of dissent, protected from the authority of the United States, or an act of treason, entirely subject to the authority of the United States. I will attempt to present an analogy, please bear with me. Suppose you and your fiance had gotten into an argument. In the heat of things, she says, "you know what, I am going to my mothers". She leaves. Is she upset? Yes. Is she in disagreement with you and/or you conduct? Yes. Did she call off the wedding? No, or at least, she did not convey that message to you. Now imagine that instead, she pulled the engagement ring off her finger, threw it at you, chucked you the bird, and stormed out the door. You would probably feel much more concerned about the relationship. The point I am trying to make is that the action of burning the flag says something. Yes, it says dissent, but it goes further and suggest aggression and severance. As the action of throwing the ring says "deal off", burning the flag says "deal off". Now one might say that if the flag burners intention was to only severe ties with the U.S., that that does not amount to treason. This may be true except that, as the flying ring symbolizes more than just a need to cool down, the burning of a state's flag symbolizes more than dissent and severance. In fact, the conduct is universally understood as the desire of, or the accomplishment of, the destruction or conquering of a state. The colonist burned the king's flag as we declared our independence. Whenever a fort has been taken, the conquered flag is replaced by the new inhabitants' flag. When we were attacked, extremist muslims and socialist burned our flag in celebration of the success of their brothers. How would one suppose we distinguished between the guy who burns the flag because he wants free health care, and the guy who wants the US to cease to exist. As a side note, I would like to say that I do not want the Feds to round up any stupid kids for burning flags and charging them with treason. My reason for debating the subject is that because we withhold the right to dissent, we need to exercise it with responsibility. I am not worried about the kid who youtubed himself burning the flag, wanting to or seriously contemplating burning the White House. I am worried about the lack of understanding of the message it sends and the ills that will fall upon a free society that downplays it.