The House of Representatives has once again approved a proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, and now it’s the Senate’s turn. Never before has such an amendment cleared the Senate’s 67-vote hurdle, and there’s no reason to pass it now.
Really, how many flag-burners do we usually see on our streets?
Congress should spend its summer — and the rest of its existence — ignoring this issue and instead devoting itself to solving the complex and more relevant tasks that we elected its members to take care of in the first place.
Social Security is headed toward insolvency. Nuclear proliferation threatens to kick off a third world war. And don’t forget that we’re embroiled in a war on terrorism.
The full text of the proposed flag burning amendment reads, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”
Flag burning is blatantly distasteful (and extremely rare), but we agree with the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling protecting flag desecration as a form of free speech. This issue has already been dealt with.
Let’s be honest. This isn’t just about burning flags. Much of this is a case study on the power of emotionally charged rhetoric. An attempt to shore up political support by backing a proposal intended to inspire patriotism for one’s own benefit is despicable.
The flag does indeed symbolize this country, and at times can be the only representation of its ideals for thousands of miles. But is it more patriotic to protect the flag or to protect the ideals it represents?
The preservation of freedom of speech, even in its most offensive form, is as strong of a testament to true patriotism as is possible.
A more appropriate amendment would read, “The Congress shall have the responsibility to exercise the full power it actually holds.”