Wed 22 Jun 2005
The House of Representatives just passed the long-debated amendment that would give Congress the power to outlaw flag desecration. The amendment has passed the House before, but always died in the Senate. Now that the Republicans have a larger majority, passage looks possible by as close as one vote in the Senate, though state ratification is much more difficult (a 2/3 majority is required in both bodies of Congress, and then 3/4 of the states must ratify it).
I’ve seen polls with hugely different conclusions, some showing a clear unwillinginess to change the U.S. Constitution and others showing a clear desire for this amendment. I don’t know what to believe, but my personal experience tells me that this is one of those issues that makes you look like a jerk for not supporting it. Why my opposition?
One problem is that the amendment is too vague. What does “desecration” entail? Can Congress pass laws banning images of the flag with an X across it? What if it’s determined that showing the flag on a T-shirt isn’t reverent enough, and that’s outlawed? Will there be laws that punish patriotic but negligent people who allow outdoor flags to get faded and tattered? It’s simply far too dangerous.
More importantly, it’s simply not in the spirit of free speech. Now maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to set things on fire on the sidewalk (certainly I’d dislike it if someone waved a burning flag near my face) and you certainly shouldn’t be allowed to burn someone else’s belongings (there’s a case where someone burned the flags belonging to an American Legion post), but these are issues of safety and personal property.
It’s so cliché, but it needs to be said: Popular ideas never need protection; it’s the unpopular ones that do. This exact argument was made in 1989 when the Supreme Court was trying to decide if anti-flag burning laws were constitutional (it decided that those laws were not, and thus the fight for an amendment began). Rep. Jerrold Nadler (of the district containing the World Trade Center) says it best I think:
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.
If the flag is a symbol of all that’s great about America, stripping away freedoms is the worst desecration of all.
June 26th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
If lawmakers really want to prevent flags from being burned, defiled, etc., they would not pass this amendment. As soon as such an amendment is ratified, I know that I will immediately buy as many flags as possible and go on a burning spree. I suspect others will do the same.
Such an amendment is purely an attack on free speech, nothing else, which is why it is so onerous. There is no public interest involved whatsoever.
As if imposed obedience is better than consent.
A friend and I talked last night about making shirts that have a picture of a burning flag, with the caption “stupid amendment.”
Well, I guess they can pass the amendment, so long as we can still wear american flag pants.
“Take a look at what I’m wearing, people (in sunglasses and matching american flag pants and shirt). You think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face while I’m wearing these bad boys? Forget about it!”
Rex, of Rex-Kwon-Do
August 29th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
[…] Also, my latest New Wisdom article deals with the flag burning amendment. […]
January 9th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Ephedra effects….
Back ephedra market….