The ‘Burning’ Issue of Flag Desecration
June 30, 2006 on 2:08 am | In Main, National |
[Photo Courtesy of Political News]
Note: I was editor of The Millerton News from 1998 to 2001. In the wake of the U.S. Senate’s narrow June 27 vote against amending the Constitution to prohibit the desecration of Old Glory, I was reminded of this editorial I wrote in The Millerton News of April 6, 2000, which was the last time I can remember this foolish idea being rejected. I have reprinted it below. Thanks to my colleague James Clark for directing me to the striking photo:
Amid the jingoism and pandering that often plagues the U. S. Congress, it was heartening to learn last week that the Senate failed to approve a constitutional amendment that would have banned the desecration of the American flag.
Even so, there were still plenty of politicians who couldn’t pass up a chance to play to the crowd, as the Senate voted 63-37 in favor of the amendment.
But thankfully, the framers of the constitution knew the value of deliberation when it comes to tinkering with their sacred document. In their infinite wisdom, they required a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, as well as the consent of three-quarters of the 50 state legislatures, in order to amend the Constitution.
“It is illogical for the Senate to ignore the feelings of the overwhelming majority of Americans who support flag protection,” said Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. As a lawyer and former prosecutor, Mr. Hatch should know better.
Would it be illogical, for example, for the Senate to ignore the cries of the masses who sometimes clamor for government censorship and a repeal of the First Amendment? How about those law enforcement officials who would like to repeal our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures? Should Mr. Hatch take their advice, too?
The argument of Senate majority leader Trent Lott is equally hollow. “In my opinion, burning the flag is not speech,” declared Mr. Lott. “It is conduct of the most offensive kind.”
The real question is whether flag desecration is political speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The Supreme Court took up precisely that question in 1989 and had the courage to rule in favor of the flag burner.
It is understandable that many people, particularly veterans’ groups, would feel offended at the sight of a protester publicly torching a flag in anger. But does flag burning pose such a threat to the nation that it warrants amending the Constitution? Simple statistics would argue otherwise: there are only a handful of such incidents reported each year.
And consider this: walk into your local hardware store and buy a flag. In addition to the flag itself, the box will contain a piece of paper explaining the inappropriateness of certain actions, such as letting the flag touch the ground or flying it at night. When a flag becomes worn or tattered, the paper says, “it should be disposed of in a dignified way, preferably by burning.”
So let’s get this straight: burning a flag in one context is “dignified,” while igniting one in protest against the government merits a night in jail. Such a glaring paradox is pretty compelling evidence that flag desecration is tantamount to political speech. It certainly isn’t on a par with public nudity, as Mr. Lott would have us believe.
Both liberals and conservatives should agree on one thing — it’s unwise to take away more of our liberties in order to protect a symbol of freedom.
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman and retired Gen. Colin Powell got it right when he said, “I will not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.”
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Thanks for the link. This is the kind of issue that has been at the forefront of affairs when parties need to turn out their base during an election year.
In addition to following the constitution there needs to be a respect of precedent. One should not attempt to strike down old laws/amendments everytime there is a shuffle in congress.
Comment by James Clark — June 30, 2006 #
Thanks for the interesting flag blog. I always wondered how far they would go in snuffing out speech, these people who are so aghast at the idea of burning a a piece of cloth with a colored design on it that represents a concept. Would they, for example, also criminalize burning a representation of a flag (a representation of a represtation), say, a painting of a flag or a page of a magazine that had a photo of a flag on it? How about a flag t-shirt?
But why stop there? Why not make it illegal to burn a photo of George Washington, say, or the current George who occupies — and I use that word intentionally — the White House?
The Bush/Senate is becoming Clouseau-like in its ability to focus on the “minkee” while the bank is being robbed: to direct the country’s attention to those issues that, wow, really affect my life every day as I’m sure they affect yours — flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, the “theory” of evolution, etc. Meanwhile, Iraq burns and hundreds of thousands of people die, working people here can’t afford gas to get them to their jobs, and health and education funding is slashed. And through it all the U.S. government still sends $15 MILLION a day of our tax dollars to fund Israeli state terrorism and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people, including its atrocious and illegal (according to international law) attack on Gaza this week that has left more than 1.5 million ordinary men, women and children without water or electricity in the sweltering heat of the desert dust bowl by the sea.
That makes us complict in Israel’s war crimes, not to mention our own war crimes in Iraq.
Way to go, Bush/Senate, keep your collective eye on that priority ball. As my mother would say, “May all of your thoughts, actions and intentions return to you and your children a hundredfold.”
Comment by Bint Deeb — June 30, 2006 #
I recently moved to fl from the nw corner and read the paper online, here in fl, one of the morning talk shows had an interesting comment and view on this issue. They stated (from a viewer) that if flag burning were to be allowed, it should only be allowed once. It is your right to do it, but in burning your countries flag, you are giving up all rights to that country. Interesting thought.
Comment by Dawn Siepmann — July 1, 2006 #
Video: Stewart exposes absurdity of flag debate…
The Blue State, TheBlueState-Todd
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/1/2078379.html
The latest Bloomberg Poll measured the 2006 race for Congress, and has Democrats comfortably leading Republicans by 14-points. With things getting desperate as we get closer to election time, the Republicans have…
Trackback by Radio Left — July 1, 2006 #
Good blog Terry! As a Vietnam Vet who lost a number of close friends over there, I have to believe they died to protect everyone’s constitutional right of freedom of speech. You don’t have to agree with every ones method of expression but you should respect and appreciate their right to do so. Thanks Sgt. John Lyons-Died 1971
Comment by Guy — July 2, 2006 #
burning the flag, no matter how offensive that is, is just another right every american has.
one could also go to a book store, buy a bible, and burn it… just as shocking and offensive.. but not a jail-worthy tresspass.
You cant burn someone ELSES flag.. but if you spent the $15 at the store to buy it, it’s yours to do as you please.
Comment by Fred S — July 3, 2006 #