HowToFoldSoup

The most recent supreme court session will be hearing several issues of note. The California "Three strikes" law, that says upon the conviction for three felonies in the state of California, 25 years to life is the only applicable sentence available to judges. A double jeopardy case regarding a man convicted of murder and sentenced to life, who appealed and had the sentence successfully thrown out pending retrial, and during retrial was again convicted, but this time the jury gave him the death penalty. And finally, the State of Virginia law that says that cross burning is criminal, without exception, even if done on your own property.

The first case I think is pretty straight forward. The two main examples of grossly over sentencing are a man convicted of stealing golf clubs and a man convicted of stealing video tapes, twice within two weeks. The golf clubs guy, obviously a genius, walked into a golf pro-shop, and limped out, upon which the clerk called the cops and he was arrested with three golf clubs down his pants. His first two 'strikes' actually consisted of 10 felony convictions, all springing from a single case of armed robbery, prior to the three strikes law. The second guy, who I'll call Dopey for reasons that will soon be apparent, stole five video tapes from a K-Mart, was caught, and while out on bail waiting for trial, was caught stealing four more video tapes from K-Mart. The two cases obviously linked, and qualified as a 'wobbler' in the California Judicial System, that could be tried as either a misdemeanor or a felony. They chose felony for both, and combined with a stunt he pulled much earlier in life, made for three strikes. The movies, totaling something like $160.00, were, in no particular order, "The Fox and the Hound," "The Pebble and the Penguin," "Batman Forever," "Casper", "Snow White", "Cinderella," "Free Willy 2," "Little Women" and "The Santa Clause." And though I do believe some jail time might be required for anyone who willingly submits themselves to "Free Willy 2" and "Batman Forever", I think 50 years, his sentence, was a little harsh.

The second case is a little harder to comment on, because I think it involves quite a few aspects of the law with which I'm not particularly familiar, but my gut reaction is to let the guy have the other case's verdict. Otherwise it's essentially saying that if you want to appeal your case, go ahead, but if you lose, we'll kill ya.

The third, and in my opinion the most straight forward case, is the most interesting to me because of those whom I've discussed it with all seem to have varying opinions on what the right answer is. I, being right, don't have any problems knowing the right answer. If you want to burn a cross in your own front yard without breaking any other laws (like endangering the property of others through fire or maintaining an uncontrolled fire within certain city limits), you go right ahead. It's unconstitutional for any law to forbid someone from burning that cross, as long as it doesn't infringe on the properly/livelihood of others. Why? Because the burning of a cross is merely an interpreted action, that people place there own values and fears upon because of what they have known it to represent. It doesn't make it illegal that it represents bigotry, just ignorant.

This isn't a Supreme Court case, but the title of this rant broadcasts where I'm going next with this, and I think it's important. Flag Burning. Specifically, the burning of the U.S. Flag on U.S. soil by U.S. citizens. The burning of any other flag is acceptable, to all parties I've discussed it with. I think Separationism is a fundamental problem with our world wide society. Separationism is the force which compels us to distinguish ourselves from others, often in violent ways. Racism, Sexism, Religious Animosity, and Patriotism are all a part of it and are all huge problems in themselves, but addressing them separately is the wrong way to go about it. The primary reason/response I get to the question of flag burning is "It's wrong, and those who do it should have their rights as citizens revoked" or "If it's not against the law, it should be". Well folks, guess what? The country you are so vehemently offended for by seeing a burning flag, was built on the principle that you can burn a flag here and you'll be doing nothing wrong. Your petty patriotism is clouding your ability to rationally judge that it's not a crime, it's freedom of speech. And if your wishes were granted, we wouldn't be living in the same country. The way of thinking behind those that would argue with me, or say the country would be better or stronger, are forgetting one aspect of their new Utopia. What happens when YOU disagree with those in power? You're voice no longer exists, in your society.