Posted on 07/04/2019 1:02:57 PM PDT by Kaslin
President Donald Trump recently stated that he supported a proposal to ban the burning or desecration of the American flag, a position he has consistently iterated several times before as well. The idea to protect the symbol of our nation – the stars and stripes – the red, white, and blue – has long been a mainstay and norm of our country.
Perhaps it is time to correct the error of allowing the beacon of our country to be torn and destroyed. In fact, it would be a return to a practice and legal structure that throughout our history reminded us of the importance – the sacredness - of what the flag represents and that goes to the core of our social contract in the United States.
In 1989, 48 out of 50 states had statutes that outlawed desecrating the American flag. However that would soon change as in 1984, a Communist burned an American flag and was arrested outside the Republican National Convention where President Ronald Reagan was renominated.
Upon the case reaching the Supreme Court, the Court stated in Texas. v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) that destroying the symbol of our nation was protected speech under the First Amendment. The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice Rehnquist and an ideologically mixed group of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, John Paul Stevens, and Bryon White dissenting.
As Rehnquist stated in his dissent, “[t]he American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy… Uncritical extension of constitutional protection to the burning of the flag risks the frustration of the very purpose for which organized governments are instituted.”
In response the United States Congress immediately passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, with overwhelming bipartisan margins of 91-9 in the Senate and 371-43 in the House, attempting to protect again the cloth that so many see hope in and that so many of our citizens have given their lives with its vision in mind. The Court soon promptly struck that down too, 5-4.
After those decisions the representatives of our nation attempted Constitutional amendments that would reverse the Supreme Court decisions. For those unaware, the Flag Desecration Amendment has actually already passed both houses of Congress not one, not twice, but three times since 1995 and each time by overwhelming bipartisan margins.
In 1995 it passed the House 312-120 and the Senate 63-36. In 1999-2000 it passed the House 305-124 and the Senate 63-37. In 2005-2006 it passed the House 286-130 and the Senate 66-34. It also passed the House on its own 310-114 in 1997, 298-125 in 2001, and 300-125 in 2003.
Indeed, among the various versions that the Congress considered at the time we also should note S. 1911, the Flag Protection Act of 2005. It was sponsored by Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and later would be co-sponsored by others including, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
>As a Constitutional amendment requires a strong two-thirds majority, the 2006 version failed by just one Senate vote.
Public opinion polls from Gallup showed in the 1990s and 2000s an overwhelming majority of Americans, generally between 55% to 63%, supported such a measure. A Huffington Post from 2016 showed Americans still support a Flag Desecration Amendment, 48% to 37%.
Free speech in the United States has never been, and never should be, absolute, whether that be in the form of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, provoking others, divulging classified information, or certain forms of obscenity.
Our flag represents our nation, its history, future, and people. It is a crystallization of what keeps us together. The act of destroying it is an act of aggression against the United States and the principles of the humanity, freedom, equality, and justice we represent. Seeing our flag degraded decreases the morale of our citizenry and amounts to an undermining of our country’s unity and constitutional government. Whether the punishment be a fine, prison, or otherwise, it is clear that for such an act there must be consequences.
The flag is not just another piece of cloth. It is a symbol – of the sacrifices made by countless throughout our history in defending it and its principles and of all our nation has done and achieved. To protect it with at least, in Chief Justice Rehnquist’s words, “the most minimal public respect” almost really seems like, in the president’s statement, a “no brainer.”
Erich Reimer is a Captain in the United States Army. He previously served as a government affairs lawyer and media commentator. Views expressed are his own and not those of the Department of Defense
Will it cover such disrespectful handling as putting the Betsy Ross flag on one’s shoes?
Bad idea 30 years ago. Bad idea now. Like it or not flag burning is political speech (yes the political speech of douchebags, but they have rights to) and limiting political speech is anti-American.
Agreed. Next thing you know, members of Congress will advocate prosecuting those who speak badly of them.
I don’t agree. Is burning down a church or shooting the occupants because you don’t agree with their religious doctrine protected by the First Amendment?
Agree wholeheartedly.
Furthermore, burning the flag is the proper way to dispose of it.
President Trump has far more pressing issues that should occupy his time.
Could you burn a rainbow flag? An isis flag? Just saying. For every 1 American flag burned, how about we get started with 100 of theirs ourselves?
No...
If you want. Just keep in mind flag burning is the political speech of douchebags.
Wow what a pathetic slippery slope strawman. When you can ask a serious question come back. While you’re dumb enough to think flag burning is akin to arson and murder you’re just plane too dumb to be hanging with grownups.
You can turn and American Flag that is torn into the American Legion and they will burn it on Flag Day which is June 14th
Would flag burning be acceptable if it were rainbow flags? It would be a test of equality for all flag burners.
It’s a philosophical argument.. and a darbed good one.
Seriously went to a movie today and AMC theaters are showing gay pride parades.
I thought we were fighting back. Sounds like running scared.
I already answered that. And not it a philosophical argument, and definitely not a good one.
I also wish to reserve the right to burn symbols of progressivism whenever I like. There is altogether too great a risk that, if given the power, they would outlaw my actions.
Many people understand that the flag represents the structure of the country. Hence, burning the flag is burning the structure/country. It’s so much more than “speech”.
If you own the church, feel free to burn it down. If you don’t own it the you are destroying someone else’s property.
Shooting someone is at a minimum a form of assault.
Neither of these actions is comparably to free speech.
The proposed amendment simply leaves it to Congress to work out such details like what counts as desecration and what count as a flag. Do you trust Congress with such authority?
The day my government says I cannot burn a flag is the day I want to do so.
A despot like Obama May come back and make things really bad for freedom loving people.
BUZZZZZ Wrong again. It REPRESENTS the structure, it is NOT the structure. Burning a symbol is just burning a symbol, you’re not ACTUALLY burning the country. You can burn every single American flag on the plannet and the structure of this country will remain 100% INTACT. Speech is the biggest thing there is, that’s why it’s protected in the FIRST amendment. Your ability to tell the government it sucks is the first right enumerated. There’s no exemption in there for symbols of the country. Heck destroying symbols of the British empire as a big part of rousing folks to revolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.