Lots of blogchatter about the flag-burning vote in the House and the eminent domain decision in the SCOTUS. To me, these are both steps in a bad direction: more gov't power. It's always a lot easier to give politicians power than take it away from them.
I don't like the flag being burned. I don't like people wearing KKK hoods or swastikas either, which probably 99% of people would agree with me on. But MoveOn.org shirts annoy me, too, while a significant percentage of Americans sees them and says "Yeah, move on, you sex-obsessed Republicans!" (assuming they still remember why it was founded). Who's to decide which of those things ought to be banned? I think it's too dangerous to try, because otherwise we get things like the Fairness Doctrine, which suppressed conservative speech for decades by deeming the defining of what's "fair" and "objective" to be the job of Your Friend Big Brother. The flag-burning vote strikes me as a well-intentioned paving stone in the road to hell.
The income tax dealt limited gov't a mortal blow, and the FDR-era SCOTUS finished it off, then performed unnatural acts on its corpse by deeming strict constructionism (you know, that antiquated "rule of law" notion) passe and usurping the legislative function by creating this ridiculous "living document" idea, as though the Constitution suddenly germinated in its case one day and began sprouting roots and leaves and Article and Amendments all over the place. This eminent domain decision is just dancing a jig on limited gov't's grave, singing a merry tune of nanny-statism, drunk on expanded powers.