June 28, 2006
Flagging Support
Well, I see where the proposed anti-flag burning amendment was defeated in the Senate by one vote.
Frankly, this doesn't bother me in the least.
Under current Constitutional law, I believe the Supremes got it right back in 1989 with the Texas v. Johnson case: flag-burning is a form of political expression and, as such, subject to First Amendment protection.
The just-failed proposal would, of course, have overturned that, specifically nixing the current First Amendment protection of such actions. But while this is perfectly permissible under our Constitutional system, it strikes me as a heroic waste of time and effort as well as a dangerous messing about with First Amendment principles (in this, I disagree with Taranto's opinion that passage of the amendment would be "essentially harmless").
It strikes me that the better way to deal with flag-burner types (and by the way, just how many of them are there these days?) is by challenging them in the marketplace of ideas. All weapons are available - scorn, ridicule, debate, patriotic fervor, whatever. Or, one can do the same with them that one does with any other purveyor of dumb-ass stunts - ignore them.
UPDATE: They're batting the issue around in the Corner today with some apparent split of opinion. J-Pod reminds me that there actually may be some value to semi-regular Congressional fretting over the matter:
Jonah, I also oppose the flag-burning amendment. But as a strictly Machiavellian matter, as a sheerly political stunt, you have to admit that it's one of those peculiar gifts that keeps on giving. Republicans can bring it up every few years or so during an election year to torment Democrats and drive the New York Times and Jonathan Alter into a state of near-psychosis. Cynical? You betcha.
Heh.
Posted by Robert at June 28, 2006 09:26 AM | TrackBackI really see both sides of the issue, and am persuadable either way.
That being said, were I a politician, there would be only one possible way to vote on this, which would be for it.
Podhoretz is correct. It is a symbolic vote that makes for a better issue than it does as a law. It's the Republican equivalent of raising the mimimum wage.
Posted by: The Colossus at June 28, 2006 10:30 AMThis is one of those rare issues where I'm actually unsympathetic to both sides. Falg burning (IMHO) doesn't really meet the standards for protection as freedom of *speech.* Conversely, it seems inappropriate to tinker with the Constitution on issues as narrow as this one.
Isn't there room for a compromise? I seem to recall a city council which affirmed that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment, and then passed an ordinance setting the maximum penalty for assaulting a flag-burner at $25.00. Seems reasonable enough to me.
Posted by: utron at June 28, 2006 10:50 AMUtron - P.J. O'Rourke mentioned that ordinance (or one like it) in his excellent discussion of the Texas v. Johnson case in Parliament of Whores. I seem to recall he was opposed to such measures because he felt they pinned a "kick me" sign on the backside of the majesty of the law.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at June 28, 2006 11:06 AMRobbo, heaven forbid that we should impugn the majesty of an institution that awards seven-figure damage settlements to people who try to drive while holding a cup of coffee between their knees. Anyway, my suggestion was facetious. Somewhat facetious.
Posted by: utron at June 28, 2006 11:22 AMI recall after the 1989 case, a federal flag burning law was passed (subsequently struck down). One guy at a federal building, apparently looking for his 15 minutes of fame, tried and failed to ignite a flag as his 'free expression'. Apparently, the flag's manufacturer had thoughtfully treated the flag with a flame retardant.
Posted by: KMR at June 28, 2006 11:23 AMAlthough it pains me to say it, I agree with Rob 100% on this one.
I don't agree with J-Pod though. If it can only be described as a cynical political stunt (which only missed by one vote, dangerous margin for something you don't believe in) then it shouldn't be done. If you don't agree with the principle, you don't agree, period. You don't jerk around your constituents.
LB Buddy: when doesn't Congress jerk around their constituents?
;)
As a somewhat related aside: I find it interesting that you can spend a bajillion dollars to get yourself elected to public office, no matter what the ramifications to the electoral process might be, and that action is just as protected under the First Amendment as burning the flag.
I suppose one could say that anything that's meant to desecrate our country and its symbols is protected speech.
Ain't it grand?
Posted by: Kathy at June 28, 2006 01:03 PMI find it interesting that you can spend a bajillion dollars to get yourself elected to public office
That's some expensive free speech. Perhaps it should be classified as purchased speech.
Posted by: LB Buddy at June 28, 2006 01:14 PMFree speech only means free from being fined/thrown in jail by the government. Even soapboxes cost something.
If 5 moonbats burn the American flag, there's no real problem. If 5 million do, then we have a more serious problem than air pollution or a susequent flag shortage. To me, those who burn the American flag are saying that they are opposed to free speech, right against self incrimination, etc. Not that they are opposed to whatever administration is in the White House.
Posted by: rbj at June 28, 2006 02:12 PMI have participated with my son's Cub Scout pack in burning flags on two occasions in beautiful and moving flag retirement ceremonies.
That helps explain why I am opposed to the proposed amendment.
You can show both the deepest respect for and most vile hatred toward what the flag represents through identical conduct towards the same physical object. This makes the proposed amendment a suspect [to me] attempt at defining "crimethink." That makes me very uncomfortable. I would rather err on the side of greater liberty, even liberty to do something distasteful.
Image courtesy of the lovely and talented 