No, proposal is political gesture that courts are not likely to uphold

Writing an opinion piece for the Charlotte Observer, Associate Professor Dr. Susan Roberts, teaching Political Science at North Carolina's Davidson College, and being quite critical of Pres. George Bush, had this to say:

"Adding credence to the idea that a flag-burning amendment is a calculated addition to the Republican agenda is the history of flag burning itself.

Flag burning was thrust into the public eye following an arrest of a young man during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. The man identified himself as a member of a group calling itself the Revolutionary Youth Brigade. He was charged with a violation of the Texas Desecration of Venerated Objects statute.

In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an appellate court decision that the man was within his First Amendment rights. Wasting no time, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act just months after the ruling. Wasting no time, the Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act was inconsistent with First Amendment freedoms and thus unconstitutional.

It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would now uphold an amendment prohibiting flag burning, even with the change in the court's composition."

(hat tip to James Taranto, Opinion Journal)

Does anybody see anything wrong with this critical buffoonish line of thinking? Please tell me you do.

"It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would now uphold an amendment prohibiting flag burning, even with the change in the court's composition."

Since when did the Supreme Court start overturning constitutional amendments? This is pretty pathetic for a "Dr." in Political Science at an American institution of "higher learning". I have the perfect
School Song for them.