I heard from many of you last week who were disappointed to learn that Wesley Clark supports a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning. While I, too, found the news upsetting, I’m not prepared to join some of you in writing off Clark because of it.
And for those of you who wrote to say that Clark’s take on the proposed amendment is proof that we should all be rallying behind Howard Dean, I’d like to remind you that Dean’s record on the amendment is a little murky.
In 1995, when Congress was getting close to passing a flag burning amendment, many state legislatures were passing resolutions urging the federal government to support the effort and send the matter to the states for ratification. While 45 states threw their support behind the proposed amendment, Vermont bravely bucked the trend. Howard Dean, however, had nothing to do with it.
After an intense debate, the Vermont House rejected a resolution endorsing an amendment by just seven votes. Instead, the House approved a measure in which state lawmakers urged respect for the flag as a “venerable symbol of our national heritage,” while insisting that a constitutional amendment would “diminish the very freedoms and liberties for which the flag has stood for over 200 years.”
Unfortunately, opponents of the flag amendment resolution looked in vain to then-Gov. Dean for support. While Dean, of course, did not have a vote in the legislature, many lawmakers sought his leadership to help defeat the effort. Instead, Dean stayed on the sidelines, refusing to oppose or support the resolution publicly. He said at the time that he had an opinion on the matter, but he was choosing to keep his thoughts to himself. (Ironically, these same lawmakers instead received leadership against the resolution from then-Vermont Attorney General Jeffrey Amestoy, a Republican, who urged lawmakers to reject the effort despite political pressures.)
The issue re-arose in Vermont two years ago, when the state legislature passed a resolution voicing support for protecting the flag and suggesting Congress pass a constitutional amendment as an option in providing such protection. Specifically, the resolution urged Congress to “take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag.”
In his final year as governor, Dean supported this measure, despite its vague support for an amendment.
Though Dean’s supporters may now see him as a straight-talking, no-nonsense leader, during the debate on protecting the flag, Dean desperately wanted to have it both ways.
He told the Rutland Herald in January 2002, “I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment…. A constitutional amendment should be passed only in very rare circumstances.” He added, “I do believe the flag ought to be protected… I don’t think you should amend the Constitution without a deep purpose. Protecting the flag is certainly a deep purpose, but I don’t believe you can amend the Constitution for that.”
Everyone follow that? Dean supported a resolution encouraging Congress to “take whatever legislative action it deems necessary” to protect the flag, plus he insisted that a “deep purpose” is a prerequisite for an amendment and he described flag protection as a “deep purpose.” At the same time, he argued that he opposed an amendment.
When asked to reconcile his support for the resolution with his opposition to a constitutional amendment, Dean said, “The resolution was crafted so that people like me could take a position supporting the flag without supporting an amendment.” What a courageous stand in support of the Bill of Rights.
In fact, Dean’s wavering was even more complicated. As Joe Conason noted last week, Dean insisted that all Vermont lawmakers should announce their position on a flag amendment before voters went to the polls in 2002. But as the Rutland Herald explained at the time, “Dean is not apparently holding himself to that standard. He refused to reveal his position on amending the U.S. Constitution banning flag desecration, noting coyly that he would not be a candidate in 2002.”
Just some information to consider if a flag-burning amendment is going to make or break your vote for a presidential candidate.