"Flag-burning amendment erodes your rights"

Pioneer Press
June 24, 2005

GLENDA HOLSTE

"We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

If the heat of summer is upon the nation and Congress is stalling out on substantive business, it must be time to instigate a skirmish in the culture wars. Resurrecting a flag-burning amendment represents a surefire winner in the battles of political symbolism, so the majority in your House of Representatives has, for the sixth time since 1995, enacted its version of a constitutional amendment that bans burning the American flag.

The trouble with the House this time is not just that it's wasting efforts and doesn't choose to embrace the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, the trouble is this bit of demagoguery could at long last win approval in the U.S. Senate and make its way through the states in search of 38 that will ratify an amendment that says:

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

I live in Ramsey County, a swatch of blue in an America where current definition classifies political belief in two of the three colors in the U.S. flag. Our member of Congress, Betty McCollum, didn't vote for the amendment on Wednesday. We haven't had an epidemic of flag-burning any time since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Texas v. Johnson in 1989 that the symbolic speech of burning a flag in protest is protected by the First Amendment.

But even if the environment here were bright red, the flag-burning amendment as written would make no sense to freedom-loving, law-abiding folks who have ribbon magnets on their cars.

If Congress has a broad power to both decide what desecration of a civic symbol is and then to punish behavior related to that symbol, could that not mean outlawing a Fourth of July fireworks display shaped like a flag? The fireworks represent a flag and they burn.

How about that flag-motif beach towel? Better ban it. The kids might tromp on it and grind in some sand. What about those $5 patriotic T-shirts that abound from Memorial Day through the Fourth? I have one with starred and striped butterflies. Could be considered disrespectful.

What about all those table and bed linens with flag representations? What about my patriot flip-flop sandals? Geez, I walk on the same symbols the flag displays.

What about flying a flag off the deck when a bug-repellent candle might catch it ablaze? If the flag-respect police happen to cruise by and see that cloth burning, you're busted. What if that red, white and blue ribbon magnet falls off in the driveway and the flag-police find it defaced by an SUV tire track? Who's to convince the authorities that you backed over it innocent of anti-American intent?

The pro-ban folks say they mean just actual flags that are destroyed either in protest or as an act they project as hatred. But once turned loose, can the flag-respect police with the power of Congress behind them restrain themselves?

I have seen American flags ignited. These are ugly acts. They punch the gut. But the remedy for repugnant speech, as the founders of this republic noted, is more speech, not suppression, not Congress sticking its nose in every middlesex, village and town.

Neither is the matter of flag burning one of ideology. It is a matter of constitutional principle. In the 1989 Supreme Court decision that has raised congressional furor ever since, the liberal lion Justice William Brennan wrote for the 5-4 majority, which also included conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia.

Whether you live in a blue or a red area, whether you want to punish an outrageous expression or tolerate it so the flag-police aren't allowed to come after you, too, doesn't a country have real problems to tackle?

Maybe that's part of the political point, diverting our attention. If we are tussling over who's the best patriot, maybe we aren't watching our liberties fade like a cotton flag left out in the rain.