An alternative to the flag burning amendment

July 8, 2005

I realize that the constitutional amendment banning flag burning has been pushed to the back burner in light of recent events, but it’s still coming up and I wanted to note that a leading Republican opponent of the measure has offered a viable alternative.

U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, a longtime opponent of amending the Constitution to ban flag-burning, has introduced a bill that would criminalize certain cases of flag desecration.

The Flag Protection Act (S. 1370), introduced on July 1, would make it a crime to damage someone else’s flag — including those owned by the federal government — or to damage a flag in a way that promotes violence. The Republican senator from Utah said he wanted to make it clear that he doesn’t support flag-burning, but he does support the constitutional rights of expression symbolized by the United States flag.

“My objection to a constitutional amendment should not be construed as demonstrating indifference to the issue of reverence for the flag,” he said.

Nor should anyone else’s, but that won’t stop Bennett’s party from condemning anyone who votes against this nonsense.

Still, Bennett’s proposal is helpful. First, it’s federal legislation, not a constitutional amendment. Second, I’m fine with protecting others’ flags, since destruction of private property is illegal anyway. I’m not quite sure how they’d enforce flag damage that “promotes violence,” but why split hairs?

Bennett’s bill has a Dem co-sponsor — Kent Conrad, (D-N.D.), whom the GOP wants to go after on this issue before the 2006 elections — and offers a reasonable alternative to those who say they want to protect the flag but not undercut the First Amendment for the first time in American history. Hopefully, the legislation might even curtail some wavering lawmakers to back this instead of the constitutional amendment.

“When my Senate career is over, I don’t want the most important constitutional vote that I have cast to be one that weakens the First Amendment,” Bennett said.

Now all we need is 33 other senators who feel the same way.

What grant of authority in the U.S. Constitution would permit such a federal law? Commerce clause?

  • I mean, of course, the “damage someone else’s flag” part of the proposed bill.

  • Since when does the fed gov give a damn about staying within the confines of the constitution? (although I’d say the Bill of Rights gives plenty of opportunity to ban these activities)

    Would someone challenge this on the grounds that they either have the right to damage other people’s property, or to promote and incite violence? Both are already illegal.

    Even if it was challenged, the SCOTUS recent decision re: medical pot shows that the commerce clause can and will be distorted to allow any government action.

  • The timing for this may be perfect–apparently they’re STILL one vote short in the Senate of sending this to the states.

    Looks like Bennett may have afforded us a chance to wriggle out of this obvious booby trap.

  • What grant of authority in the U.S. Constitution would permit such a federal law?

    ummm….a COnstitutional amendment doesn’t need a constitutional authority. You can amend it with any words that will get 2/3 of both chambers and 3/4 of state legislatures. It could even just be gibberish. Civics 101 people.

    I have been getting sick with the Dems who are signing onto this measure. Polls I’ve seen show little support for the amendment, yet, Dems are flocking to it. Feinstein (I hate that bitch, she is PUSHING this amendment), Nelson x2, Stabenow, etc are supporting this out of 2006 fear and it is sickening.

    • Comments are closed.