It seems that at least for the time being, Americans can still fill their blood-thirsty desire to set Old Glory ablaze. On Tuesday a constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning fell short of passing by a single vote. Yes, that’s right, an incredible 66 Senators feel that freedom of speech does not include burning a piece of cloth in order to express dissent toward the activities of the American government. This measure garnered wide-spread support from the Republican party with only three Republican senators voting against it. In fact, our own Republican senator from Louisiana, David Vitter, was a co-author of the proposal. According to Vitter, protecting the flag from such horrible acts of desecration, such as burning or urination, is important for America because it establishes respect for veterans and soldiers and will curtail judicial activism that “undermines” American values. Clearly Vitter considers himself one of those great so-called “conservative” defenders of the Constitution. This couldn’t be a more perfect example of hypocrisy and absent-mindedness. Judicial activism is a term often used to portray unpopular Court decisions as being the result of malicious attempts to enact law based on the ideological views of judges as opposed to being based on upholding the principles of the Constitution. If upholding the right to free speech established by the First Amendment is considered to be “judicial activism,” then I must clearly be mistaken about the role of the Judicial Branch. Vitter claims to be in favor of upholding Constitutional principles, but apparently this does not apply to issues of free speech. And this is indeed an issue of free speech. In 1989, the Supreme Court established that the burning of the American flag is a protected form of political speech and expression under the First Amendment in the landmark case of Texas v. Johnson. This ruling overturned anti-flag burning legislation in 48 states. Furthermore, claiming that banning flag burning is important because it shows respect for the veterans and soldiers who fight to defend America is absurd. Our soldiers are (at least supposed to be) fighting to defend and secure the rights of Americans. By attempting to ban flag burning, we are actually showing disrespect to their past efforts by taking away the very rights for which they have fought so hard to protect. A ban on flag burning, an inherent restriction on freedom of speech, essentially slaps them in the face by saying their fight for our rights is meaningless. What is even more interesting about this issue is that our Congress is actually wasting the time and money to debate an issue which is irrelevant at a time like this. Our country is faced with a litany of important real-world issues: the war in Iraq, healthcare, the national deficit, NSA wiretapping programs, wages and the rebuilding of New Orleans to name just a few. With the extensive culture of corruption plaguing the Republican party, not to mention the massive failures to adequately address the aforementioned issues, it is clear to me that this is simply a political move to distract voters from the serious Republican short-comings and in turn garner support from the “values voters” which constitute the religious right-wing of their base. This exact same “strategery” was used a month ago with the amendment proposal to ban gay marriage, which failed miserably. Other than being a clear violation of the right to free speech, there were even more problems with this amendment. The proposal was worded as follows: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” This statement leaves open the interpretation of what constitutes physical desecration. If this amendment were to have passed, what would keep states from banning flags with political slogans or symbols written on them, using the American flag in advertising or printing the American flag on products for sale? Would it be okay, for example, to wipe your mouth with a napkin that has the flag printed on it? This amendment would open the door to curtailing several forms of political protest involving the use of Old Glory as well as restricting when and where the flag can be used. Louisiana law currently bans flag burning, yet it is unenforceable due to the 1989 Supreme Court decision which protected flag burning as a form of free speech. Interestingly, Louisiana law also protects the Confederate flag from desecration. If Congress wishes to ban flag burning, are we no longer going to be allowed to burn the Confederate flag to protest racism, bigotry, and hatred in Louisiana? Unfortunately, the real issues at hand, such as raising the minimum wage, ending the war in Iraq and guaranteeing health care to all Americans are not going to go away, and simply putting them on the back-burner by giving priority to debate over irrelevant symbolic legislation is not going to solve any of America’s problems.
—–Contact Erik Browne at ebrowne@lsureveille.com