Flag-burning amendment has ‘momentum’

June 15, 2005

I hate to say “I told you so” (does anyone really hate to say that?), but I’ve been saying for months that this constitutional amendment on flag burning is cause for concern. Now, it appears supports of this effort are actually starting to make serious progress.

The Senate may be within one or two votes of passing a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the U.S. flag, clearing the way for ratification by the states, a key opponent of the measure said Tuesday.

“It’s scary close,” said Terri Schroeder of the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the amendment. “People think it’s something that’s never going to happen. … The reality is we’re very close to losing this battle.”

Many Republicans in DC are insisting that they’re intent on “getting back to an agenda that affects everyday lives and everyday Americans,” and yet, here’s this constitutional pollution barreling down the pike, poised to undercut the First Amendment for the first time in American history and offer a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

In fact, the House may vote on the amendment as early as next week. It will, no doubt, pass (for the seventh time). In the Senate, there’s reason to worry. Five freshmen senators — Richard Burr of North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana — voted for the amendment as House members and plan to do so again.

Thune, a principal sponsor of the amendment in the Senate, claims to have the “momentum” in the debate and Bill Frist is reportedly anxious to bring the issue to the floor. This, despite the fact that the American public doesn’t want the amendment, and the scourge of flag burning in the United States appears to be all-but non-existent. Indeed, the Citizens Flag Alliance, an advocacy group that wants this constitutional amendment, reports a decline in flag desecration incidents, with only one this year.

But supporters, mostly Republicans, continue unabated.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, one of the amendment’s chief sponsors, said this week that burning the flag is “offensive conduct.” Putting aside the idea that we’ll need a lot more amendments to prohibit all of the conduct Orrin Hatch might find offensive, it’s worth noting exactly what Hatch is criticizing here.

I did a quick search on Google News for recent news on flag burning. The results might surprise Hatch and others who think like he does. For example:

* Boy Scout Troop 14 organized a flag-burning ceremony at Veterans Memorial Park in the town of Smithsburg, Md., yesterday. Local officials said burning American flags that are no longer usable was “proper disposal.”

* The Veterans’ Association in Summerfield, Fla., burned 150 flags at a public ceremony yesterday. Veterans, boy scouts, and an honor guard were on hand for the event.

* In Hazelton, Pa., veterans and area Scouts gathered Tuesday evening to celebrate Flag Day by hosting its annual flag-burning ceremony. “It’s the only proper way to it,” said Tom Kostick, commander of AMVETS Post 253 in White Haven. “We like to let people know the proper way to dispose of them. We’ve been doing this for around six years.” Kostick added that he helps collect thousands of flags for the burning and has set up a mailbox in front of the VFW building where veterans can donate flags for the ceremony.

There were dozens of other examples, from across the country, where flags were burned, usually by local veterans’ groups.

Would Hatch have us believe these men and women were engaging in “offensive conduct”? No, he’d probably argue that this was different because these people love America and were honoring the flag by burning it. In other words, the senator would have us believe that good people can burn the flag, but bad people should be prohibited from doing so. People who burn the flag out of reverence should be encouraged, but those who do so in protest should be arrested. It’s not how you act; it’s what you’re thinking while you act that matters.

The language of the constitutional amendment doesn’t make these distinctions, of course, so if Congress continues on its current path, these veterans and scout troops may want to consider bringing attorneys with them to future Flag Day ceremonies.

Does it count as a real flag if it’s made in China?

I suppose in a world where fake reporters/gay hookers count as real reporters anything is possible, but if this ammendment passes and I decide that I want to burn Chinese made flags in a protest over foreign goods does this count as the real thing. In my mind this would be an imported good that happens to bear the symbol of America on it, not a real American flag.

  • Who cares? If they want to ban flag burning, it’s better to do it constitutionally, instead of having the GOP trying to stack the courts with judges who would okay a statutory ban.

    Is it grandstanding? Sure. Irresponsible? You bet. But it’s not really like our actual, immanent exposure to political ideas will suffer in the least from the newfound dearth of burnt flags. If, on the other hand, we found ourselves with a passel of judges who didn’t give a rat’s ass about the First Amendment, we’d be in a true world of hurt.

  • The Right is doing both: stacking the judiciary and legislating. Much will depend on how the media treat this proposed precedent setting piece of grandstanding. Petit a petit l’oiseau fait son nid. If the Left handles this properly, it will be another great piece of ammo for 2006. Look at those popularity rankings of members of the Senate in Capital Buzz. The more the Right does stuff like this, the more unpopular individual senators get… (I’d love to see popularity rankings for the House…)

  • What a load of BS from the “more patriotic than thou” crowd. They’re wasting taxpayer dollars using congressional time to try to pass this crap, which will cost us even more when it hits the courts. Sensationalistic pandering at its worst to change a document that is designed to tell us what we can do into a document that will instead tell us what we can’t.

    How do you implement an anti-desecration policy? Is it desecration if a sweaty athlete wraps himself up in it and takes advantage of its absorbent qualities? What about the old Boy Scout code of never leaving flags out in the dark or in rainstorms? What about wiping rib sauce off your face with an American flag imprinted napkin? Is throwing out a swizzle stick with an American flag on it descration?

    What strikes me as odd is why the religious right hasn’t asked for a ban on the burning of crosses instead.

  • What wind does Frist put his finger in?

    I’m in favor of a Humvee Up-Armoring Amendment. Followed closely by the Anti-Torture Amendment.

  • “Followed closely by the Anti-Torture Amendment. ”

    We used to think that’s what the 8th Amendment was. Silly us.

  • It’s been awhile since my civics class, but don’t the states have to approve amendments too, or something? Might it be stopped that way? And might that be an embarrassment for them, if it is stopped on the state level? Or am I just being naive?

    Overall, I think this is going to blow-up in the GOP’s collective face, just like everything else they try to do. The only question is whether they’ll get our faces in the way too; like they did with Iraq and their dangerous taxcuts.

  • Doctor Biobrain, I’m afraid there’s little hope the states will help us out on this one. As USA Today noted, every state legislature has passed resolutions urging Congress to send them a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. Proponents of this nonsense wouldn’t need 50, just 38.

    At this point, state approval is practically a foregone conclusion. If this amendment is going to be defeated, the Senate will have to save the day.

  • Republicans cannot pass legislation to overhaul Social Security. They are spending money like drunken sailors and spending their way into huge deficits. The war in Iraq is going badly and Osama bin Missin is still at large. They are a complete and utter failure. So this is what they offer up to the American public – a flag-burning amendment. They promise a strong economy, victory over terrorism, secure retirement but they deliver none of that. They throw flag-burning amendments up instead. They promise the world and deliver nothing. Prohibiting flag-burning will not decrease the threat of terror. It will not improve the economy. It will not reduce the deficit. And people still vote for them. I just don’t get it.

  • I do wish the Democrats would remember who brought them to the dance, the Blue-collar and middle-income wage earners of this country.

    Issues like this, and the Schiavo case, and the anti-gay amendment and so, so many more should be rammed back down the Republicans’throats. They are fiddling with (if not destroying) peoples rights as a distraction from the fact that the obscenely rich are robbing hard working people (and their offspring) blind.

    Can’t anyone beyond Dean learn to make the point … over and over and over again … that all these social issues are DISTRACTIONS?! Diversions while the GOP picks out pockets?

  • The Dem response is simple: Abstain.

    Say, to anyone who will listen, “America has a lot of real problems to deal with–problems caused by foolish policies advanced by the Republican party. I’m not going to lose my focus on those real problems and spend my time voting on fake ones.”

  • Looking at the amendment that authorized Prohibition and was then repealed when saner heads prevailed (and when some big-shot ran out of decent tequila, probably), it’s just as probable that this one will disappear from the public radar even if it is approved.

    The Republicans can’t get anything else done so they desperately need one single thing passed that they can point to, and this is the best they can do. But I can’t believe that even they would be so stupid as to go out and arrest a bunch of elderly veterans and Boy Scouts for doing what was an accepted traditional practice even when I was a little kid myself.

    When dirt was young, thanks for asking.

    No, all they want is a grandstanding play, and once they get it they’ll forget all about it. That’s my best guess, anyway.

  • Wow, those guys are loosing their shtik. Is that all they have in their sleeves ? Not a single little war, not a half-baked terror alert, not even a tax for the rich ?

  • I think the states would have to weigh in on this. But it occurs to me that this move is likely another mark of Republican desperation, a gesture to their radical supporters who may (judging from rightwing radio in my red bible-belt area) be very discontented with the way things are going. In which case let’s crack open a keg and cheer!

  • This is hilarious. These same guys who oppose hate-crime laws because they think it is “thought-crime”, are creating an amendment that bans…. thought-crime.

  • Shit, if my state legislature votes for this crap, I’ll vote for the Republican.

  • How about an amendment to prevent another Bush from becoming president?

    Anyway, something tells me this amendment wouldn’t get through the states even if it survives the Senate. And I wonder if it could actually backfire against Republicans in 2006. There’s no urgency, after all, and this might yet persuade even more moderates to come over to our side. Plus, it could rally our base.

    Yet another sign of overreach. And that might not be such a bad thing. Thoughts?

  • So Orrin Hatch thinks burning the flag is “offensive conduct”. I’ve got a great idea, then. Let’s have a constitutional amendment that will outlaw picking one’s nose in public. By golly, we’ll have this nation on the right track, then, won’t we?

    • Comments are closed.