Smokin' Mirrors: On Burning Flags and ConstitutionsYou might be forgiven for thinking congressional
senators had little to do these days. What, with fighting an illegal
war, sending the country into a downward spiral of economic chaos and
whittling away civil liberties with a hunting knife and all. But no,
they have rustled up the time to have a great, big, long chat over the
symbolism of the flag, as they try to push through what would have been
the 28th Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban any burning or
desecration of the Stars & Stripes.
Bolstering the justification of this timely debate was, believe it or not, the war in Iraq.
"Proponents of the amendment, which was backed by 52 Republicans and 14
Democrats, disputed the assertion that burning the flag was a form of
speech," wrote Carl Hulse in the New York Times. "They said the
amendment was simply an effort to reassert Congressional authority
after a misguided court ruling. They said it was particularly
appropriate to act now when American troops are at risk."
Opposing Senators who voted against the S.J. Res. 12 amendment mostly
did so to uphold the Bill of Rights, and effectively blocked the
amendment by one vote.
"This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is
unpatriotic," Senator Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat who won the
Medal of Honor for his service in World War II, told the NY Times. "But
I believe Americans gave their lives in many wars to make certain all
Americans have a right to express themselves..."
Many groups have been actively opposed to the amendment since it was
first raised as an issue during the Presidency of Bush Snr, when the
two high court rulings occurred which contended that desecration of the
flag constitutes freedom of speech. The older Bush told the same NY
Times reporter that he continues, "to believe that the American people
deserve the opportunity to express their views on this important
issue."
One of those groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, has been a vocal campaigner against such an amendment.
"America prides itself on tolerance and acceptance; it is essential
that we not amend our founding document to allow censorship, even when
the speech in question is reprehensible," said Caroline Fredrickson,
Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Today the
First Amendment and, indeed, the entire Bill of Rights remain
untarnished and more meaningful than ever. It is our hope that
the Senate will now move on to the real problems this country faces."
Of course, the irony in all this appears to be that the issue of
burning a flag is of more importance to the Senators than the reasons why
people are burning flags. A flag, in the great world of semiotics, is
one of the most powerful symbols of the political world. It can make
people swell with pride or it can make them explode in anger – the
trick to it, as with any sign we read, is the connotation each person
derives from it. One person's pride and glory can be another's
frustration and resentment. Both are perfectly legitimate feelings, and
both deserve to be expressed. As offence breeds offence, the burning of
a flag should also be taken in context: it is rarely ever the same
symbol to all people, its pure and unadulterated meaning skewed by time
and history.
The amendment would make desecration of the flag a criminal offence,
but how exactly would this be policed? I would take a wild stab in the
dark and say that the majority of US flags are not even burnt on US
soil, but rather in countries that are ideologically opposed to US
foreign policies. Do people who burn the flags in those countries then
become enemy combatants? If an Iraqi burns a US flag, what happens?
Invasion and then Guantanamo?
It's not over yet for those propping up the Bill, and as it comes down
to crunch time for some of those senators on the election block, the
Republicans have yet again taken up an issue of little grave importance
(compared to, say, global warming, the war, unemployment, healthcare,
education, etc, etc) and chosen one that is riding on the back of
patriotic fanaticism. Could they possibly 'win' yet another election
based upon such scant ideas?
As long as it distracts from what's really going on, they may be in there with a shot.
Tags: america constitution
Latest stories in Politics
THE POWER OF LEADERSHIP
Nepal : Things Go Wrong For Maoists
The International Criminal Court - Selective, Unrepresentative and Without Credibility
ARE SO CALLED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS DEMOCRATIC?
WHAT DOES CHOOSING OBAMA SAY ABOUT AMERICA?
| Willhemina Wahlin
I have written for music mags in Australia, hosted an produced a radio show in Australia for a year, writing mainly political stories, but also had a live band in once a week and would interview them, and I have just been published in a major Australian newspaper. I am now an intern for a magazine here in Japan.
Politics is one of the most frustrating, intriguing and enlightening topics to write about. I live in hope that young people will become more aware of who their politicians are, and passionate about using their voices.
 GOD IS DEAD. HE IS NO MORE. HE IS KAPUT.There is no such thing as church law, sharia law or any other religious law. The law of the land, Government law, or International law applies. Religious entities simply do not have the legal power or authority to create or apply laws.
|
