House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment
If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.
- Rep. Jerrold Nadler, (D-NY)
Having apparently solved all other pressing problems facing this country, Congressional Republicans have apparently decided that it’s time to pander to their reactionary base. Of course, pandering IS one of the things they truly excel at, no?
I don’t think that flag-burning can, under any circumstances, fairly be described as anything but despicable. Even so, despicable speech is still protected speech under the First Amendment. Not liking a particular behavior or form of expression is NOT sufficient reason to proscribe it. That’s why it’s called “freedom of speech and expression”. Someone really ought to pass this fact along to those Republicans in Congress who willingly and openly pander to those who find it easier to react than to consider how the law of unintended consequences will come into play.
Memo to the DUMB@$$ES who would so blithely manipulate the Constitution for their own political self-aggrandizement: it’s not “free speech as long as you agree with the political or moral viewpoints being expressed”. It’s “free speech”. PERIOD. Get over yourselves and learn to accept the reality that molding the Constitution to fit your fears and prejudices is every bit as despicable as the behavior you’re attempting to proscribe….
Sixty-three senators, four short of two-thirds needed, voted for the amendment in 1995 and again in 2000. With Republicans increasing their majority in last fall’s election, activists on both sides of the issue said the amendment has its pass chance ever of passing this year. But a rough count by The Associated Press shows 34 - one more than needed to defeat it - either as having voted against the amendment in the past or committed publicly to opposing it.
Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.
“Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center,” said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. “Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.”
And why would the opinions of those who stood atop the World Trade Center trump the Constitutional protection of free speech and expression of millions of Americans? I certainly respect the work and dedication of those who gave so freely of themselves in the aftermath of 9.11, but their opinions are no or less important than any other Americans. Isn’t about time that Republicans start trying to deify these folks?
What is it about the flag that expires such worship? Think about it…we pledge allegiance to the flag, our national anthem is dedicated to it…and yet we have forgotten that it is a symbol, a piece of cloth. It stands for this country, but the country is what is within all of us. Judging by what’s happening these days, this country is a narrow-minded, judgemental, fearful place where people think it perfectly acceptable to marginalize and demean those who do not think as they do.
The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.
The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.
Amending the Constitution is not something to be undertaken lightly. In this case, it is a pure and simple attempt to pander to the fear and prejudice of a public more prone to reaction than to consider the ramifications of what can only be described as a poorly-thought-out attempt to pander to hollow patriotism and jingoism. Enshrining this sort of xenophobic symbol worship into the Constitution will only serve as a disturbing precedent.
Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed.
But last year’s elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.
By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.
The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.
Congratulations, America; you’re getting exactly the quality of leadership you deserve. You’ve elected this collection of pandering, superficial, jingoists. I imagine you’ll be quite happy with the results. After all, it’s certainly easier to react than to think and consider the consequences of what is being done on your behalf, no??
That fact that I could burn a flag if I wanted to is the chief reason I choose not to do so.
Back in 1989, the Louisiana State Legislature reacted to the Supreme Court's ruling in a characteristically entertaining fashion by introducing a bill that would substantially reduce the penalty for simple assault -- in cases where the victim had just burned a flag.
It didn't pass, and neither will this...
But this brings up an interesting question. Since the Supreme Court held that burning a cross is not protected speech, while burning a flag is, shouldn't the separation of church and state folks be upset?
First of all, the supreme court ruled that burning a cross IS protected speech (RAV v. St. Paul; Virginia v. Black et al) when it is not used solely to intimidate or threaten violence.
Secondly, holding that some cross burning is not protected speech has nothing to do with religion.
I forgot to say a couple of things. Going with the religious theme, I don't understand why so many Christians support such an amendment, despite the fact that it's blatant idolatry.
Also, here is my favorite quote on the subject, from Brennan writing for the majority in Texas v. Johnson:
"We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by--as one witness here did--according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."
Adam...should I ever be arrested while standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in my hand, you're first chair on my defense team...and when you get me off, we'll play 18 holes on my dime, 'kay?? ;0)
My point exactly. You can burn a cross as long as it doesn't intimidate or threaten violence. But you can burn a flag even if it does intimidate or threaten violence.
I wish I could express myself as well as Adam does.
Ah, I see your point now. You still can't burn a flag legally very easily. You're almost always breaking some law (disturbing the peace, open flame without a permit, etc.)