Protecting the American flag - will the Senate get it?
As we reported yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a controversial amendment to the Constitution that would prevent, among other things, the burning of the American flag as a form of protest. The simple single sentence amendment reads as follows:
"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert was overflowing with eloquence about what a powerful symbol the American flag has been throughout our history. I take no exception with what he said - all of it is true. But I do take exception with what he didn’t say. He didn’t tackle, or even mention the real issue - that the First amendment should not protect acts of violence, near violence, or potentially dangerous behavior. Instead, he pandered to the patriotic side of the coin. He reveals his true agenda, that is to do what he believes his constituency wants him to do, in the following statement:
"Today’s legislation gives Congress the constitutional power it needs
to protect this American treasure. All 50 states have passed
resolutions calling on Congress to pass such an amendment, and I
believe an overwhelming majority of the American people support this
action."
And he’s not the only one who believes a majority of Americans want to protect the flag from closet arsonists. Here’s how Democrat strategist Ray Strother analyzes the mood of the country:
"I can’t imagine when it gets down to it that any Democrat would vote against the ban. Something strange is happening in this country. More than ever, people seem to be looking for symbols. What does this flag amendment really mean? Doesn’t matter; it’s a symbol for something else. People, particularly the conservative movement, are trying to leave a trail of signs that have larger implications. We now know the power of these symbols."
Let me translate that for you - it means that he has no idea what real people think or want. the line, "Something strange is happening in this country," is the giveaway. People are fed up with a handful of nut cases who, under the guise of political protest and under the protection of the First Amendment, want to hit the streets with provacative and threatening behavior.
You know, these political types maybe ought to give the average American a little more credit and recognize that most people are going to take the phrase, "free speech" at face value - it refers to "speech" and not to a broad variety of actions fondly referred to as "expression."