Flag Amendment Needs Just One Vote in the Senate
WKYC reports:
“The American flag is a unique symbol that should be protected,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the chief sponsor.
There are lots of “unique” symbols which people hold dear and would like to see protected. Why not include the Bible? How about the Quran or images of Muhammed? Maybe the Confederate flag should be protected — after all, several southern states protect the Confederate flag from desecration right alongside the American and their state flags.
This is generally a Republican issue — it’s always introduced by Republicans, and arguably for political purposes. Democrats, though, are guilty of aiding and abetting this stupidity:
Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and at least 13 other Democrats have voted for or voiced support for the amendment. New Jersey’s Robert Menendez voted for it as a House member, and his spokesman, Allyn Brooks-LaSure, says his “current intention” is to do so as a senator. Menendez replaced now-Gov. Jon Corzine, who had opposed it.
Democrats are put in a very difficult position. When such measures are introduced for political purposes, it’s precisely because it’s a lose-lose situation for the other party. If Democrats fail to support efforts to “protect” the flag, they can be branded as anti-flag and unpatriotic in the upcoming election; if they do support these efforts, they violate basic principles of individual liberty. This is why the proposed amendment always fails in the Senate — there are always enough people there who aren’t facing re-election in the near future that they can afford take a chance in opposing it.
Paul McMasters of the non-partisan First Amendment Center, which works to protect that amendment’s freedoms, says the Senate is trying to provide “a radical solution to a non-problem. It’s unwise, unnecessary and un-American.” ... John Vile, a constitutional law expert at Middle Tennessee State University, says some believe that the amendment “would be the first in U.S. history to restrict the Bill of Rights.”
There is no flag desecration or flag burning “problem” in America — flag burning, which is what sparks people’s strongest emotions and what most people focus on, happens so rarely that there’s no reason to really worry about it. Other forms of “desecration” which the constitutional amendment would permit criminalizing are so common that no one cares if they occur or not.
That’s one reason why you can tell this is a purely political move on the part of Republicans — the constitutional amendment won’t solve any social or legal problems. Instead, it’s designed to solve the “problem” of Republicans’ popularity among voters right not. People willing to sacrifice others’ individual liberties for the sake of their own political popularity hardly deserve to be in office in the first place, though. Their actions are no less — and arguably more — criminal than accepting a bribe.
Flag Burning, Desecration and Politics:
- Overview of State Laws on Flag Abuse, Desecration, Burning
- Index of State Laws on Flag Abuse, Desecration, Burning
- Is Flag Burning a Real Problem?
- Playing Politics with the American Flag
- Flag Desecration: The Issue is Not the Issue
- Banning Flag Desecration: It's Just the Beginning
- Flag Fetishism and the Cult of the Flag
Flag Burning, Free Speech, and Free Expression:
- Free Expression as Political Subversion
- Flag Burning vs. Flag Waving, Speech vs. Expression
- If Desecration is a Crime, What is Prohibited?
- Censorship Envy: Breaking the First Amendment Truce
- Copyrighting the Meaning of the Flag
- The American Flag as Symbol — But of What?
Problems with Banning Flag Burning, Desecration:
Comments
When there’s nothing better to do with our tax dollars…
There is nothing more important right now than those damn flag-burnin married gay illegal immigrants!
John Vile, a constitutional law expert at Middle Tennessee State University, says some believe that the amendment “would be the first in U.S. history to restrict the Bill of Rights.”
It would be the first to explicitly limit the Bill of Rights, and it would set a terrible precedent in doing so. It would not, however, be the first amendment to limit personal freedoms. The 18th amendment, banning alcoholic drinks (aka Prohibition), was passed in 1919. It was, fortunately, later repealed in 1933, with the 21st amendment.
An idea for a future article might be to examine the reasons why the 18th amendment was able to be repealed, and whether any of those reasons might be applicable to repealing the flag burning amendment if it becomes law. Let’s hope that remains a hypothetical, though, and that the flag burning amendment never gets passed.