House Looks to Approve Constitutional Amendment Banning Burning an American Flag

AP, via TBO.com ^ | Jun 3, 2003 | By Jesse J. Holland

[greydog]

WASHINGTON (AP) - In what Democrats called an annual GOP "rite of spring," the Republican-controlled House on Tuesday prepared for a fifth time in eight years to pass legislation to authorize changing the Constitution to criminalize flag burning.

The one-line change to the Constitution - "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States" - is likely to approved by the House.

The vote is planned as a pair of holidays approach - Flag Day next Saturday and Independence Day in July. Senate passage is less likely.

Burning an American flag shows disrespect for America, and the majority of the American people approve of legally protecting Old Glory, supporters said. "If we allow its defacement, we allow our country's gradual decline," said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio.

But many opponents say the legislation would limit free speech rights.

"The whole purpose of the underlying constitutional amendment is to stifle political expression that we find offensive," said Rep. Robert Scott, D-N.C. "While I agree that we should respect the flag, I do not think it is appropriate to use the criminal code to enforce our views on those who disagree with us."

It is unlikely that the GOP-controlled Senate will take up the constitutional amendment this year, said Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, one of the bill's Senate supporters. The Senate has never passed the legislation under Republican or Democratic control.

"It's always an uphill battle but we're hoping we can get it done," Hatch said. "Maybe not this year, but at least probably next year."

The constitutional amendment needs a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and approval by three-fourths of state legislatures.

The Bush administration supports the legislation, the White House said.

Lawmakers have debated the flag amendment almost annually since a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in 1989 saying flag-burning was a protected free speech right. That ruling overturned a 1968 federal statue and flag protection laws in 48 states.

In 1990, Congress passed another law protecting the flag, but the Supreme Court that year, in another 5-4 ruling, struck it down as unconstitutional.

Since then, the House has approved flag amendments in 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2001, all by more than 300 votes. The Senate, in votes in 1995 and 2000, came up with only 63 votes, four short of the two-thirds majority needed.

The House's new members haven't had chance to weigh in on the issue, said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

"We think they ought to have that opportunity because it's an important piece of legislation that makes a very strong statement about what our flag means to us and to the people of the United States," DeLay said Tuesday.

Opponents of the legislation, including Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., called the vote a Republican "rite of spring" public relations ploy.

"The calendar tells us that June 14 is Flag Day and of course there's July 4th," Nadler said. "Members need to send out a press release extolling a need to protect the flag, as if the flag was in need of protection by Congress."

[greydog]

Anybody that would support this measure somehow reminds me of Jimmy Swaggert.

As repulsive as the act of burning the flag is, it's still a political expression and banning it is the same as banning 30-rd clips to me.

[newgeezer]

This is one issue that separates the men from the emotion- and feelings-driven boys and girls (and fascists).

We don't need no stinkin' flag burning ban.

[Huck]

what an enormous waste of time.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Gee, all the serious problems in the world must be behind us if Congress has time for this sort of nonsense.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am opposed to messing around with the Constitution for an issue like this. Why not allow our enemies to show themselves?

[Thane_Banquo]

There is a property-rights side as well: Who is the government to tell me whether or not I can burn something that belongs to me?

[zonan]

"The whole purpose of the underlying constitutional amendment prohibition on cross burning is to stifle political expression that we find offensive," said Rep. Robert Scott, D-N.C KKK Byrd. "While I agree that we should respect the flag black people, I do not think it is appropriate to use the criminal code to enforce our views on those who disagree with us (the KKK)."

[newgeezer]

As much as I loathe being on the same side as Nadler and his ilk, they're right (hopefully for all the wrong reasons).

[Senator Pardek]

There is a property-rights side as well: Who is the government to tell me whether or not I can burn something that belongs to me?

Bingo.

[Sam Cree]

I'm with you on this one. If they can ban flag burning, they can criminalize your thoughts. Oh, wait a minute, they already did.

[unixfox]

All I can say is...

GIVE EM AN INCH AND THEY WILL TAKE A THOUSAND MILES.

[newgeezer]

Why not allow our enemies to show themselves?

Exactly. I've always loved that about this country. It's good to know which are the Michael Moores among us.

[Republican Wildcat]

I used to agree with a ban on flag burning -- and was upset with my Senator, Mitch McConnell, for opposing it. Then I heard him once explain it -- "if we are going to put this prohibition in the Constitution, should we also put an amendment in the Constitution banning Roseanne Barr from being able to sing the National Anthem? Where would it stop?" After hearing that, I changed my mind -- not that flag burning is right, but that changing the Constitution is not a practical way of solving the problem.

[newgeezer]

Besides, if and/or when the SCOTUS allows the likes of Algore to recount votes as many times as it may take to produce the winning total -- 5-to-4 was cause enough for outrage, IMHO -- I want every opportunity to express my opinion of the state of our nation.

[Sparta]

This is ridiculous. Just because I think some form of expression or speech is offensive, doesn't give me the right to ban it.

[B Knotts]

If they really want to ban something through a Consitutional amendment, maybe they might consider stopping the slaughter of innocent pre-born children, instead of a silly flag burning ban.

[EvilOverlord]

I'm not sure that destroying a flag counts as freedom of expression. We do have laws against defacing both currency and buildings (graffiti), for instance.

BUT, even if it is a freedom of expression, specific examples such as flag burning don't belong in the Constitution. The Constitution defines our form of government and explicity and implicitly protects our freedoms. This document is not a criminal code and actions such as burning flags, defacing money, grafitti, theft, etc. are not important enough to be in it.

The courts can decide if flag burning falls under first ammendment rights. If so, let it be. If not, add it to the criminal code and deal with it there.

[Arkinsaw]

We would be better served if they would get rid of an amendment or two (popular election of Senators and Income Tax) rather than adding this one.

I'm not sure who they are trying to appeal to with this amendment.

[Sam Cree]

Well, there's probably lots of criminal laws that are unconstitutional. IMO, flag burning would be one of them if it were passed.

However an amendment banning it is in direct conflict with the first amendment, IMO.

[sackofcatfood]

If you *really* want to stop public flag burning, cities could pass fire ordnances against it. . .