In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank goes into full sarcasm mode over the Senate debate over a constitutional amendment to bar flag burning. At times crossing into bitterness, Milbank still hits a few good points.
The naive among us may have trouble appreciating how four flag-burning episodes would constitute a constitutional crisis. But the men and women of the Senate, ever alert to emerging threats, are on the case.
"I think of the flag as a symbol of what veterans fought for," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said as he opened the debate yesterday, "what they sustained wounds for, what they sustained loss of limbs for and what they sustained loss of life for."
….
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) saw the calculus somewhat differently.
"They say that flag burning is a rare occurrence; it is not that rare," he told the chamber. An aide hoisted a large blue poster detailing 17 incidents of flag desecration over three years. Hatch, citing "an ongoing offense against common decency," read them all. "That's just mentioning some that we know of; there's a lot more than that, I'm sure," he said.
Never mind that, in most cases, the perpetrators could be prosecuted for theft or vandalism. For Hatch, this was sufficient evidence of the need for an amendment. "Now, I have to tell you," he vouched, "the American people are aggrieved."
….
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) countered with a different set of figures. "There have been only seven acts of flag desecration annually in America in the last six years, so to argue that we have this growing trend toward desecration and burning our flag defies the facts," he said. "In fact, it rarely, if ever, happens. And so why are we about to change the handiwork and fine contribution to America of Thomas Jefferson?"
Next on the floor, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) presented yet another set of statistics. "Exceedingly rare," he concluded. "Two hundred cases in 215 years. Less than 10 cases over the last 10 years."
But Durbin and Dodd were in the minority in their inability to recognize the threat to the flag. Nearly two-thirds of the senators — tantalizingly close to the number needed to pass the amendment — are expected to vote for the flag-burning amendment this week, including Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.), the Democratic leader.
I have mentioned before that I think this amendment is unnecessary and is a waste of time to pursue. As outraged as I get when one of these events actually occurs, it is not a good idea to begin altering the constitution over this. It also opens the door to other prohibitions on speech and I would rather we as a nation do not go down that path.
We should be able to see that the actions of a few jerks cannot take away the symbolic power that the flag has. In fact, their actions reinforce that power and demeans any person or cause that resort to such an action.
Wow liberals and conservatives agreeing…surely a sign of the apocalypse!!!!
I’ve always felt this was a bad idea.
There surely is a more productive use for their time in the Senate. People are dying out there for chrissakes.
Nice to see a conservative with a sense of responsibility.
Amending the constitution to limit our constitutional freedoms for specific acts is the first step down a slippery slope. Never should you put symbols before substance. Especially for such an outrageously political waste of time.
I think that was a compliment, albeit somewhat left-handed.
No more foolish than banning gay marriage or adopting Jesus as the personal savior of the US. I have a thought, why not an ammendment to require that our representatives in congress do some real work that address real problems.
Hillary want’s a Flag Burning Ammendment, therefore it must be bad.
I think this bill is being pushed forward, *because* it doesn’t really affect anything substantive. It enables both parties to look busy, without the risk of actually having to take on something difficult that’s facing this country, and actually *do* something about it.
Real immigration reform would mean actually enforcing current laws on companies who hire illegal aliens – no one wants to do that. Real budget reform means cutting back on the huge recent increase in Fed. gov’t size and power – no one wants to do that. Real health care reform means taking on both pharmaceutical and insurance companies – you better believe no one in the Senate or the Congress wants to do that.
Next I expect an a bill that “The right for Moms to cook Apple Pies shall not be infringed”. Maybe with an amendment that declares “Also puppies are allowed to be cute”.
I’m a left-leaning libertarian.
I don’t support this for sooo many reasons.
Starting with the first amendment and ending with this illegal war in Iraq.
The war is not illegal. Nor is it the subject of the post.
The war is not illegal. Nor is it the subject of the post.
Gaius,
Sorry to stray off-topic.
You would agree, though, that it is a first amendment issue?
With all the proposed amendments to the Constitution in the past few years I fear we are failing to appreciate the gravity of said document. I view the Constitution as the foundation of our government. It is not to be tampered with and any changes should be greatly and deeply considered before any action is actually taken, which should be taken even more seriously yet. I’m with Gaius on this. I hate flag burning, but it’s not something I want to see wedged into the Constitution.
It is a first amendment thing. It is also a really bad idea to fool with the foundation of this country over what is really a self-defeating action. People are rightly disgusted by the act, and it discredits both the person and the cause they represent by such actions.
Pingback: Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Senate Fails To Pass Flag Burning Amendment
Pingback: The Heretik » Blog Archive » Classic Demagogue
The dimwits who drafted the flag-burning amendment apparently didn’t stop to consider that passage of this ill-considered bill would surely trigger a nationwide epidemic of flag-burning. More flags would burn in the first 24 hours after passageof this fool amendment than have burned in our entire national history.
Has anyone else noticed that it is the so-called ‘conservatives’ who are anxious to alter our Constitution with various amendments? I thought the essence of conservatism was a respect for the Constitution in its original form…..
Cajun, Hillary Clinton was one of the sponsors. Harry Reid voted for it.