If you all didn't already know, there is a flag-burning amendment going through Congress. It has already passed the House and needs only one vote in the Senate. Our illustrious Senator Feinstein is in favor of this amendment. I just called her DC office and told the staffer I disagreed with the Senator. She simply registered my complaint, didn't ask me about it.
Feinstein's statement is here. She says, "This amendment would do one thing only: give Congress the opportunity to construct, deliberately and carefully, precise statutory language that clearly defines the contours of prohibitive conduct." She goes on, "I believe a Constitutional Amendment returning to our flag the protected status it has had through most of this nation’s history, and that it deserves, is consistent with free speech. (...) Securing protection for this powerful symbol of America would be an important, but very limited, change to Constitution."
Contrast her quote with that from the ACLU:
""The symbol should not be valued more than the freedoms it represents," said Terri Ann Schroeder, ACLU Senior Lobbyist."
Here is a good editorial in the LA Times about why flag burning should not be constitutionally banned:
Contrast her quote with that from the ACLU:
""The symbol should not be valued more than the freedoms it represents," said Terri Ann Schroeder, ACLU Senior Lobbyist."
Here is a good editorial in the LA Times about why flag burning should not be constitutionally banned:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-flag27jun27,1,1143144.story?coll=la-news-comment. (I've copied it below, it appears you need a login to the Times site.)
If you are opposed to this amendment to the Constitution (this ain't just a law) folks, you can contact her office at http://feinstein.senate.gov/ or call her at (202) 224-3841.
-hgs
The case for flag-burning
An amendment banning it would make America less free.
THERE ARE MANY ARGUMENTS AGAINST a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw "the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." Let us count the ways in which the amendment, which is disturbingly close to the 67 votes required for Senate approval, is unworthy of that body's support:
• It's a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. There has been no epidemic of flag-burning since the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that destruction of Old Glory as a protest was symbolic speech protected by the 1st Amendment.
• The reintroduction of this amendment is part of the Republican Party's election-year attempt to rile up its social-conservative base, a "panderama" that already has produced a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, which failed earlier this month. That reality alone should cause Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to reconsider her support for the flag-burning amendment.
• The reintroduction of this amendment is part of the Republican Party's election-year attempt to rile up its social-conservative base, a "panderama" that already has produced a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, which failed earlier this month. That reality alone should cause Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to reconsider her support for the flag-burning amendment.
• As Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pointed out, "The 1st Amendment has served us well for over 200 years. I don't think it needs to be altered." Placing a no-flag-burning asterisk next to the amendment's sweeping guarantee of free speech is a mischievous idea, and it could invite amendments to ban other sorts of speech Americans find offensive.
But the best argument against the flag amendment is the one some opponents are reluctant to make for fear of political fallout: It would make America less free.
Rare as flag-burning may be, a nation that allows citizens to denounce even its most sacred symbols is being true to what the Supreme Court in 1964 called the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
In that decision, and in 1989, the court interpreted the free-speech protections of the 1st Amendment generously but correctly. The Senate, including Feinstein and fellow Democrat and Californian Barbara Boxer (who has opposed a flag-burning amendment in the past), should let those decisions be.
But the best argument against the flag amendment is the one some opponents are reluctant to make for fear of political fallout: It would make America less free.
Rare as flag-burning may be, a nation that allows citizens to denounce even its most sacred symbols is being true to what the Supreme Court in 1964 called the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
In that decision, and in 1989, the court interpreted the free-speech protections of the 1st Amendment generously but correctly. The Senate, including Feinstein and fellow Democrat and Californian Barbara Boxer (who has opposed a flag-burning amendment in the past), should let those decisions be.
No comments:
Post a Comment