|
 Gifts
for all occasions in the Galleria!July 2, 2006 Flag Burning: Liberal Conservatives By Jan A. Larson About the only way I can describe the conservatives that supported the recently defeated "flag burning" amendment is that many sound like liberals. On this issue, most of the conservative commentary that I've read reads much like it was written by anti-gun, anti-smoking, anti-property rights, tax-the-rich liberal pundits. Before I continue, let's get one thing straight. I am not advocating flag burning or any other public form of desecration of the American flag. Such activity offends me just as much as it offends most Americans. If we were to amend the constitution to outlaw everything that most Americans find offensive, let's start with outlawing overweight women wearing spandex pants, teenagers using the word "like" six times per sentence and Ted Kennedy. Frankly, I don't understand how so many have been sucked into the notion that when it comes to protecting the flag, that "there oughta be a law" (or in this case, a constitutional amendment). It smacks of political correctness. It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that any activity that is indeed so rare and harmless would require an amendment that not only would not solve the "problem" of "rampant" flag burning, but also would knock the very foundation from the First Amendment. The vast majority of flag burning/desecration incidents may be (and are) adjudicated via vandalism or public endangerment laws. There is no need to single out this activity for special treatment. What would we do? Make flag burners wear a scarlet "F?" One argument offered by amendment proponents is that flag burning (or, in theory other forms of desecration) are not "speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that such displays are protected, but do we really want to make that argument? Silently holding a sign in front of the White House that reads, "George W. Bush is our greatest president" isn't "speech" either, if you want to get technical about it, but should that form of expression lose First Amendment protections too? Protest and dissent can take many forms and I, for one, believe that the First Amendment should apply to all of those forms, spoken, written or otherwise. Another argument is that our soldiers have died for the flag. Why would anyone die for something that you could easily replace with a quick trip to Wal-Mart? No one ever died for the flag itself but rather our service men and women have given their lives over the years for the ideals that the flag represents. Ironically, the amendment would only protect the cloth while eroding the ideals. The proposed amendment would have authorized Congress to "prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." But what is the flag? Is it the only the familiar red, white and blue, fifty stars and thirteen stripes version or does that also include the "Betsy Ross" flag, the 33 stars version or the Gadsden flag? What about a "flag" with 49 stars and 12 stripes? What about a picture or painting of a flag? Would the Confederate flag deserve protection too? Maybe, to express a view counter to the recent pro-immigration demonstrations, someone chose to burn a Mexican flag. Would another amendment be required to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of another nation or could we burn French and Canadian flags with impunity? If it came to that, would flags such as the Nazi flag or Soviet flag require the same protections as other foreign flags? Where does it end? Let's face it, if anyone wants to stage a political protest against the government of the United States and, as part of that protest, wishes to destroy an American flag or depiction thereof, he or she could do so despite any flag protection amendment. Is the Constitution of the United States not deserving of more reverence than to amend it over such a frivolous issue? Most conservatives abhor the thought of constitutional amendments, but yet on this subject, many are ready toss that position out the window. Protecting the flag is an emotional issue and politicians love to play on citizens' emotions. How else would you explain Diane Feinstein and Harry Reid voting along side Bill Frist and Trent Lott? They are all eager to stand behind a vote to protect the flag. After all, who doesn't want to protect the flag? This Independence Day, as we celebrate the founding of our nation, let us remember the things that set the United States apart from other nations, namely that we can tolerate dissent and protest, even if that protest is of a disgusting nature such as the desecration of the flag. Let's also appreciate that the Constitution is too important to modify on a whim. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
