Senate Rejects Flag Burning Amendment

There are plenty of problems with the modern incarnation of the political protest. The typical protest is overweighed by a veritable rainbow of different groups clamoring for different causes, many of them so outlandish and fringe that it's difficult to believe they take themselves seriously. There's the inevitable man-on-stilts in the crowd, the people wearing papier mache caricatures of political figures, the people who don't really realize what the protest is about, the Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier supporters (regardless of the topic at hand) who couldn't tell you a thing about the people they seek to liberate. All in all, political protests are often a motley crew of progressives looking to change the world all at once, and unfortunately without a whole lot of success lately. What isn't found at modern political protests much any more, however, is people burning the American flag. This form of protest fell out of fashion about thirty years ago, likely when protesters realized that it was a quick and effective way to make sure that no one gave a second thought to the topic you were attempting to address because they were so irritated by you burning their flag. Regardless, flag burning is yet again on top of the GOP agenda for this summer's legislative session, and what's even more odd is that the often discussed and wholly irrelevant consitutional amendment banning came one vote away from passing this time around.

The U.S. Senate rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to empower Congress to outlaw flag burning, falling one vote short of the two-thirds majority required to send the measure to the states for ratification.

The vote was 66-34 in favor of the amendment. Sixty-seven votes are required to approve a constitutional amendment.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must also be ratified by 38 state legislatures. Republicans argued that 48 states had outlawed flag desecration before a Supreme Court decision in 1989 invalidated a Texas law. They noted that all 50 state legislatures have passed resolutions urging Congress to approve a constitutional amendment.

Democrats accused the Republicans of ignoring more pressing issues, such as spiraling health-care costs, to score election- year points over flag burning. Democrats made the same charge earlier this month when Senate Republicans unsuccessfully sought a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

``Why are we here? Because the White House and the congressional Republican leadership are nervous about the upcoming election,'' Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, said during today's debate in Washington. ``We are not setting out to protect Old Glory. We are setting out to protect old politicians.''

Republicans said the issue is above politics, citing bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, which has passed a flag-burning amendment six times in the last 12 years.

``Bringing it up at this time is certainly not an election- year ploy,'' said Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, the measure's prime sponsor. ``We have Democrats and Republicans who feel deeply about this.''
The "debate" is standard fare in what has come to pass for modern political discourse; the farcical discussions that constantly go back and forth in Washington these days. Republicans loudly and brashly trumpet their newest law or constitutional amendment, declaring themselves patriotic in the process, all the while claiming that anyone (ie. Democrats) who opposes their latest brainchild is somehow unamerican or unpatriotic or wants to make out with Osama bin Laden. And then Democrats are shocked, shocked that anyone would be so crass as to challenge their patriotism, and then proceed to vote for whatever the Republicans are trying to pass because they're afraid people might challenge their patriotism. If it weren't so depressing it would be boring. What's especially unfortunate this time, however, is the open support that some Democrats gave it.

The House, meanwhile, has already passed the flag amendment, under the unlikely leadership of Jack Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat, and Duke Cunningham, a now-convicted California Republican.
And Harry Reid, along with 13 other Democratic Senators voted for it. So even senior Democrats are jumping on the bandwagon. What's surprising is who lead the charge against it.

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the deputy Republican leader, voted against the amendment. McConnell has said he favors upholding First Amendment values. Two other Republicans, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Robert Bennett of Utah, also opposed the amendment.
I'm no fan of Mitch McConnell, but it's nice to see him take a principled stand for something, even if there is some devious plan for personal political gain underlying it.

At issue here is the politicization of a mode of free expression that many undoubtedly find distasteful. I'm not personally all that offended by seeing an American flag burn, but neither would I choose to do so. Regardless, my personal preferences, and the preferences of people like Bill Frist and Orrin Hatch are irrelevant when it comes to determining a constitutional basis for expression. When people like them try to desecrate a document like the constitution by writing in idiocy like the flag burning amendment it's far more offensive than burning a simple flag ever could be. Fortunately the Senate, by the tiniest margin possible, agreed.

web address: http://suicidegirls.com/news/all/16910/Senate-Rejects-Flag-Burning-Amendment/