Yes, intent. And, once again, if you are dealing with the first amendment, the first amendment is very clear that Congress shall make no law that impacts on intent; it only has to do with actual acts. If you speak against the Government, that is fine. If you enter into a conspiracy to actually overthrow the Government, it becomes an overt act, and the act is dealt with, but not your intention to demonstrate your disapproval. So I think the Senator from Kentucky raises a very significant point as to how pernicious this could be if it were part of the Constitution as opposed to a statute. It leads me to believe that the appropriate way to deal with someone who desecrates the flag might be a punch in the nose as opposed to evisceration of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which we have not changed--and I think wisely--in the 200-year history of our country.
Bill Bennett: “Yes, intent. And, once again, if you are dealing with the first amendment, the first amendment is very clear that…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the First Amendment during a debate on flag desecration.
Share
More from Bill Bennett
Ron Paul will not be the nominee of this party. I will take odds on that.
The other thing is, why would the Obama campaign again want to highlight friction with the Clintons or the Clintons at all? That moment is gone. It's Obama. He's the nominee.
This is a professional magazine. Look, it's often a first-rate magazine. You don't get credit if you're 'The New Yorker' for trying. You get credit for succeeding.
as we come to the final vote on the stimulus package, I express my great regret that I am going to be unable to vote for it because we clearly need a stimulus package that works. The economy is in serious trouble, and we need to do the…