|
|
May 24, 2013
|
|
Joe Conason: On Capitol Hill, a Burning IssuePosted on Jun 21, 2006By Joe Conason Sometime before the Fourth of July, the Senate will vote on a constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. The House of Representatives already has passed the same legislation by the required two-thirds margin, and enough state legislatures would vote for the amendment to assure its approval. So the final bulwark against this historic assault on freedom of speech consists of 34 senators with enough courage to stand up for the substance of the nation’s ideals and to resist transforming the beloved symbol of those ideals into an authoritarian fetish. That is the real danger to the flag, whose spirit the Republican majority is desecrating with a cynical partisan zeal. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, has scornfully suggested that the flag amendment is merely another of the “pet issues of the right wing,” deployed by the Republicans to distract from their legislative failures. Confronted with a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, he recently asked: “Why are we being directed by the president and this Republican majority to debate an amendment to the Constitution, a document inspired more than two centuries ago? Why would we be asked to change this American masterpiece?” Those were highly pertinent questions. Perhaps Reid should look in the mirror when he asks them next time. If the Senate approves the flag amendment with 67 votes, a full measure of blame will belong to Reid. He will vote aye, even though he has denounced the bill as an election-year stunt whose sole purpose is to embarrass his Democratic colleagues. That ugly tactic has intimidated several Democratic senators in conservative states. Of the dozen who have supported the amendment in the past, some could be excused on that basis, at least so long as there weren’t enough votes for passage. Others such as Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is a co-sponsor of the amendment, can make no such plea. While doing injury to the Constitution, she insults the intelligence of her constituents by claiming she is really protecting free speech. Advertisement If the Senate rejects the flag amendment and preserves the Bill of Rights from unprecedented disfigurement, a full measure of thanks will be owed to Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip and prospective leader. He has vowed to vote nay, even though his party plans to use the amendment to preserve its majority. Irony abounds in the congressional theater of the absurd, where prevailing opinion equates “support for our troops in Iraq” with a determination to keep them in peril indefinitely, and demonstrates “respect for marriage and families” by barring gay couples from the affirmation of those institutions. (Speaking of irony, the prime House sponsor of the flag amendment was none other than Randy “Duke” Cunningham, the former California congressman and self-styled super-patriot now serving a long prison term for corruption.) It will be especially weird next fall, however, to hear the Republicans attack brave Democrats who dared to vote against the flag amendment as unpatriotic and unfit to sit in the Senate. Those same Republicans expect to elect McConnell, who has always opposed the amendment, as their new leader next year. Now both Reid and McConnell say they are acting on principle. The latter will vote against the amendment because he believes that it violates fundamental liberties, while the former will vote for the amendment because he wishes to be “consistent,” having supported it in the past. Of those two arguments, liberty should win over consistency. But consistency may be the best justification that Reid can muster, since there isn’t any sensible reason to approve the flag amendment beyond its atavistic emotional appeal. While nobody enjoys watching some idiot burn the flag, this has become a rare spectacle. Not many of those incidents were actually intended as political protest, and most violated another law and were duly punished. Like so many resolutions and acts of Congress, this misguided amendment is a “solution” without a problem. But unlike many of the stupid things that politicians do, this one is important. It is a statement of contempt for the First Amendment and a dangerous step toward further restrictions on speech and expression. Let’s hope that McConnell and at least 33 of his colleagues can resist the entreaties of those in both parties who would protect the flag by torching the Constitution. To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website, www.creators.com. Previous item: Molly Ivins: Bush’s Hawaiian Education Next item: Classic Scheer-Carter Interview From ‘Playing President’ New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By rob payne, June 25, 2006 at 2:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Preserving the majority is indeed the name of the game. To actually change the constitution in order to solidify a voter base and win elections is an act that illustrates the willingness of the republican leadership to be the whores that they are.
While the republican held congress continues in its pay to play style of government they pound their chests declaring what great and true patriots they are.
How far we have come from the intent of the constitution which was meant to be the ideology of a new nation and did at one time define what this country was founded on. We rejected the idea of living in a monarchy for something that was better yet today we drag the constitution in the dirt and mud in order to create a new monarchy of pure and cynical greed.
Today sitting on the thrown of power sits King George of the royal family of Bush whose moniker is the dollar bill not the American flag. Bush claims to be the vessel of God something once reserved for the pharos of ancient Egypt while on the other hand he is promoting the torture of people many of whom are innocent of any wrong doing.
The republicans wrap themselves in the flag and warble about their devout Christianity while pursuing murder, mayhem and larceny at home and abroad. They don’t care about the flag any more than they care about the constitution or the bill of rights throwing all of it to the wayside as they spy on American citizens, give broad new powers to Bush, pervert the constitution, willingly create fear and hate on our own shores in order to feed their fat faces on the pig slop gladly supplied by the corporate interests that empower them.
Change the constitution for the likes of these cynical lying and cheating frauds? I think not.
Report thisBy John, June 24, 2006 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
In regards to comment #12325 by Chris, I’m not seeing the difference between hate speech and flag burning. Burning say, the Koran, in defiance of a religion that openly advocates its own dominance through the sword and subjugation of the entire world is a political statement (yes, I have read the Koran.) I’m not advocating for the destruction of the Islamic faith, I’m simply burning one of their symbols to show my disagreement with their point of view. In that regard, it would be no different than burning the flag to show dissent to the policies of the government. However, with the current hate speech/hate crime laws, my actions would probably earn me a jail sentence.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that my freedom of speech will not interfere with your right not to be offended at what I say. I don’t care who I offend, hence my postings on this website. If the Liberals truly want freedom of speech, then they will start rallying for the hate laws to come off the books. Maybe then I will come around to their point of view.
Report thisBy a neighbor, June 23, 2006 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Enough Already
It’s as if we’ve given up, what with our continuous obsessing over how much the powers that be are screwing us, and in how many ways. Too numerous to count, that’s how many and with a never ending supply in reserve.. Look, the house is crumbling, bricks falling off, windows shattered, the roof about to fall down,. Given the amount of time that we have left (til the end of this or the following century unless we do something about global warming), there are but two options left to us: Keep busy ruminating on all the things that are going wrong with the house, or, give up on the damn structure, and, starting from scratch, put up a new house, one that matches the greatness and wonder that’s in each and every one of us.. .
Report thisBy joe t, June 23, 2006 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The genius of the U.S. Constitution and it’s Bill of Rights, is that it guarantees an individual’s freedom of speech and expression, which includes the desecration of the flag.
The irony is that burning the flag symbolizes all that it stands for.
Report thisBy Chris, June 23, 2006 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hate speech is different then a purely symbolic act. Advocating the violent death of a specific group of people runs long the lines of inciting a riot and endangering the public good. Whereas simply standing on a stage and perform a purely symbolic act is different. Inciting a crowd to violence by speech is, essentailly, taken on a case by case basis in this country as it should be. We don’t throw EVERY jerk in jail for claiming one ethnic group needs to be exterminated. But it is missing the point to compare a purely symbolic (and highly subjective) act like burning the flag with actual hate speech.
Report thisBy MARIAM RUSSELL, June 23, 2006 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
WHO CARES…...THIS IS NOT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, IT IS THE SAME AS STARING AT BC´S CROTCH, A DIVERSION FROM THE IMPORTANT THINGS. JOE, YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
Report thisBy John, June 22, 2006 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I believe in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights as it governs freedom of speech. Having said that, I’m curious as to how laws regarding “Hate Speech” have gotten on the books. Simply put, now I can be punished for saying something to a minority that offends them. So, in the same line of thought, I am having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that Liberals are against a law that bans desecration of the American Flag. I, along with many other Americans, find desecration of the American flag deeply offensive. Some people would say “Well, it is just a symbol, so there is no need to be offended by its destruction.” OK, I will buy that. It’s just a symbol of our nation, kind of like the Koran is a symbol of the Islamic faith. So, since there is nothing wrong with desecrating symbols, I suppose I should be able to urinate on the Koran just prior to throwing it into the fire during the live broadcast of a protest against militant Islamic terrorism and have no fear of any repurcussions. Oops, all of a sudden it isn’t just a symbol anymore, the disrespectful destruction of which doesn’t matter.
The way the rule of law is supposed to work is spelled out very clearly in one of the first documents that this nation ever drafted. One of the key phrases in the Declaration of Independence states “All men are created equal.” The Muslims want their Koran protected, the Christians want their Bible protected, I want my flag protected. To not apply the rule of law fairly and equally across the board simply elevates one class above another. In that regard, please refer to the pre-Civil Rights era south to see what happens when laws aren’t applied fairly.
On a side note, let’s keep any discussions that this might lead to on the level of the common person. We all know that politicians, be they Liberal or Conservative, get to play by their own rules and the rest of us be damned.
As always, I welcome dissenting opinions and open debate.
Report thisBy Robert Muschlitz, June 22, 2006 at 3:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Free speech is just another of our hard-earned
liberties that are slipping away from us.
The flag is a representation of our country and
the ideals of liberty that our forefathers fought
and died for.
Desecration of the flag? What about the desecrat-
ion of our country, it’s ideals, it’s constitution
, it’s image to the rest of the world?
As the 4th of July fast approaches, what can we
do? Perhaps it is time for WE THE PEOPLE to
stand up and take back our country.
The first thing we’ll have to do is make sure that
our votes ARE counted, CORRECTLY! We must have
voting systems that are impregnable to tampering
and backed up with a paper trail. We must also be
vigilant to the partisan purging of voter rolls
and the spurious challenging of voter eligibility
by field agents with caging lists. I know of so
many people who do not bother to vote because of
their belief that “What difference will it make?”
and who could blame them? If you can’t trust the
system, what is the point in participating in it?
Confidence must be restored to the electoral
process to win back these citizens who do care,
they just don’t have any faith in it.
The grassroots are growing, the ordinary man and
woman that is having to pay for the incompetance
of our government is ready and wanting to do some-
thing about it.
Isn’t flying the flag upside down the universal
Report thissymbol for distress? Could it not also mean that
we are no longer going to put up with what our
representatives are allowing to happen to our
country, and this is our expression of protest?