A Stitch in Haste

But fear not, the "dedicated public servants" of Pahrump don't plan to enforce the comprehensive anti-Hispanic ordinance:

Town business is already conducted in English, the ordinance regulating the display of flags won't be enforced, and the town has no real "benefits" to take away because public aid is administered by the state or the county, officials said.

The flag measure requires an American flag to be displayed at least as prominently as a foreign flag.

Does passing a patently unconstitutional restriction of free speech that you know, in advance, you're not going to enforce make it any less unconstitutional? Or does it just make you a jackass?

More:

Lee Rowland, an ACLU staff lawyer from Las Vegas, told the board the ordinance would invite an expensive lawsuit challenging its constitutionally.

"If you pass an ordinance that is blatantly in violation of the First Amendment, this town will be on the hook," Rowland said.

Damn right. Judges have recourse when plaintiffs file frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps they need recourse when politicians enact frivolous laws. Should legislative immunity really prevent these fools from spending a few nights in jail on "contempt of Constitution" charges? Stated differently, are "activist judges" really more of a threat to the American way of life than activist legislators?

---

For those who need specifics, simply see Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) ("The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong.") If burning the flag is constitutionally protected expressive conduct, then surely flying another flag above it must also be protected speech. This is not a difficult concept.

---

(Via CrimProf Blog.)