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."

[dpwiener]

How many flag-burnings do we have these days? Not very many (unless you count the "proper" flag-burnings by which damaged U.S. flags are supposed to be disposed of).

How many flag-burnings will we have if this Constitutional Amendment passes? Thousands and thousands. Flag-burning will become the in-way to flout the law and protest whatever it is about the federal government that anyone happens to be protesting.

If this Constitutional Amendment passes, flag-burning will become the symbolic way of protesting the much greater destruction being visited upon our Constitution and our individual liberties.

If this Constitutional Amendment passes, I'll burn a flag myself, because it will no longer represent freedom's banner.

[barkeep]

Missing the point here, I think. I am perfectly free to burn currency to fine ashes, the law prohibits defacing in such fasion as to make detection of counterfeiting difficult (See the www.wheresgeorge.com site). Graffiti involves another's property. I can paint the side of my building with anything I choose.

As long as the flag is my property, I do not file for insurance compensation following arson, and do not in the course of this burning endanger another person's property, I am legal. I cannnot envision myself doing this, find the act repugnant, but I have to admit it as political expression. I am not at all sure the writers of the first amendment envisioned naked young women frolicking with farm animals as protected speech, but I find I generally have to delete a few such messages every day from my e-mail in box. If freedom of speech is to have any meaning, it means I must watch, in sorrow, as others do such acts as burning a symbol dear to me.

[Ohioan]

I agree that this is a silly approach. But I do not agree with the Supreme Court that anyone has the right to burn the flag as a form of free speech.

I would address this issue differently, however. I would limit the right of Federal District Courts to even hear such cases. Thus it would not go back to the Supreme Court. Most States could then elect to prosecute such cases under existing law. We do not need to adopt a Constitutional Amendment everytime the Supreme Court hands down a foolish or even a disasterous ruling.

This same approach would also work on abortion, State Legislative reapportionment, etc..

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[VRWC_minion]

Massive waste of time. I would burn the thing myself in the public square on the day this ever became law.

[newgeezer]

Right you are.

The truly sad thing is that, apparently, what you wrote falls outside the realm of common sense.

[newgeezer]

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

I thought it was fairly obvious. It makes a direct appeal to our effeminized, emotion-driven society. (See #2)

[Trace21230]

But if the government has the right to regulate when people can burn cigarettes, why can't they regulate whether or not you can burn a flag?

I'm sure fumes from flag burning are just as hazardous as cigarettes smoke.

Therefore, we should ban flag burning to protect the population from the horrors of second-hand flag smoke.

I'm sure you'll agree.

Trace

[VRWC_minion]

I do agree. The government can regulate where its proper to burn things. We don't need an amendment to ban burning inside a building or on public property.

[EvilOverlord]

I understand what you're saying.

I tried to make a better reply, but I can't seem to get the words right. Basically, don't trash the Constitution with ammendments that restrict our freedoms or with issues that should be codified elsewhere.

In your view, flag burning is free speech, and I don't entirely disagree. The meaning of speech is so blurry these days. Generally, I guess it's better to have more freedoms than fewer, so I guess we should leave things as they are and simply wonder about those who would demonstrate their hatred by burning the flag.

[breakem]

Is there any way to stop this annual idiocy?

[NovemberCharlie]

Is there any way to stop this annual idiocy?

Vote Democrat, but that's a cure worse than the disease.

[ShadowDancer]

I would sooner burn my home than the flag. That having been said, anyone that votes to make it illegal will never, ever get my vote.

[jwalsh07]

I don't like American flag burners and I don't like American flag burning bans.

[Celtman]

breakem:
Is there any way to stop this annual idiocy?
NovemberCharlie:
Vote Democrat, but that's a cure worse than the disease.

      Actually, I think that Republican primary elections are the most important elections.  Better choices made at that time might bring a real cure.

      But a flag burning amendment is another cure worse than the disease.

[breakem]

Seems like republicans are more likely to vote for this type of crap tham dems. Dems can't get behind it when it doesn't take any money from us.

[Celtman]

Seems like republicans are more likely to vote for this type of crap tham dems. Dems can't get behind it when it doesn't take any money from us.

      Yep.  And we need to remember which Republicans voted for what the next time the primaries come around.