bigtakilla said:
danasider said:
The analogy you are making is flawed at best. Diplomatic immunity is not a human or constitutional right...it is given to foreign (people not governed by our constitution) diplomats. Yes, people can get away with all types of crimes (sometimes murder), but the country allows this (privilege as it's not given all willy nilly to any foreign joe) in order to gain the same privileges; our diplomats have the same immunities in other countries. In some cases, that privilege can be revoked. We've tried diplomats for murder in this country. But it's true that some have abused the legal system, because they've had diplomatic immunity.
The constitution, on the other hand, is the top law of the land for our citizens, and the particular subject we're debating, The Flag Protection Act 0f 1989, has been struck down by the Supreme Court in lieu of it contradicting the constitution. In this case, the chick isn't abusing the legal system like a diplomat might if he committed a crime while protected by diplomatic immunity. The constitution isn't some shield from the legal system. It is the basis for our legal system, so if a law is struck down by it, it's no longer enforceable. That is the key difference.
Apples to oranges.
|
It's an example of the abuse of laws that are meant to protect instead of allowing anyone to do whatever they want.
|
Are you actually comparing full-on murder to pissing on a flag?
