Protecting the Flag

Joe Mariani

Although the majority of Americans support a Constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to set penalties for desecration of our flag, the Senate failed to pass a proposed amendment by a single vote. It's disappointing that we see a need to amend the Constitution in order to protect our flag, and even more disappointing that our elected leaders don't see fit to do so.

The reasoning behind a flag amendment is the same is that behind the proposed marriage amendment. No matter how many laws state or federal governments may pass, one activist judge with an agenda to push can strike them down, twisting the words of the Constitution to suit his or her purpose. That was the fate of every flag protection statute ever passed, from the first state law enacted in 1897 to the federal ban on flag desecration enacted in 1968. Only by amending the Constitution can lawmakers prevent the Judiciary from rewriting laws from the bench.

It's not as though we have no limits on free speech already, besides the old standby that one can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. We have limits on political speech, thanks to the McCain-Feingold Act, which prohibits using a candidate's name in a political ad right before an election. Libel, slander and child pornography are prohibited by law. In many cases, one can't talk about religion in public places, not even when a student delivers a valedictory address at a high school. A compliment to a member of the opposite sex might get one fired for sexual harassment. And how many categories of "hate speech" do we have now? I've lost track. Don't argue for the "right" to desecrate the American flag in the name of free speech absolutism.

Burning or otherwise desecrating the American flag is not "freedom of speech." It's not speech at all. It's an action, designed to anger and upset people. If you can't come up with any way to make your point other than resorting to an emotional attack, then you don't really have a point to make. Many on the Left defend flag desecration by saying, "well, it's just a piece of cloth." But if that's all the flag is, then why bother burning it?

The flag is not just a piece of colored cloth. It's a unifying symbol that brings all Americans together, the one thing we all have in common. The American flag is the badge of our country -- the defender of freedom, the beacon of hope for billions. We display it to honor our country, our ideals and achievements. Generations of Americans have pledged allegiance to the flag, and generations of foreigners have viewed it with aspiration. Our national anthem is a paean to our flag, despite the fact that, as a child, I thought "The Star-Spangled Banner" had only one verse and ended with, "Play ball!"

The American flag flies over every government building in this country, and every one of our embassies overseas. An American flag stands, alone and proud, to mark the spot where humans first touched the surface of another world. The sight of three firefighters raising the flag over the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center in a gesture of solidarity and defiance brought tears to the eyes of every American. Every member of our military wears the American flag into battle on our behalf, to fight for the ideals it represents -- from the revolutionaries who carried the current flag's predecessors to the men and women proudly fighting under its colors today. And when they fall, that flag covers them on their final journey home.

Anyone who burns or otherwise violates our flag isn't just burning a piece of cloth, they're expressing their hate and disdain for the country that it represents, purely to hurt the feelings of those who love it. There is no other way to interpret the act of desecrating the American flag, whether performed by a Berkeley protestor or a Pakistani militant. So if flag burning is speech, as Liberals insist... it can only be hate speech, which they claim to, well, hate.

Take that, hippies.

http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-07_cy-2006_m-07_d-04_y-2006_o-0.html