The Response

Hey Everyone,

Below is my latest reponse to Sen. Hatch, regarding Flag burning. I would welcome any comments you have after reading this. Also, on the topic of politics, watch this next week as the Judiciary Committee holds its hearings on Supreme Court Nominee Roberts. I think CSPAN is going to cover the hearings during the day, and then replay them in the evenings and late night.

On that note, can I just say that I really like CSPAN (1&2)? No commentators during speeches, just raw footage! Its great! The best for watching, and then making up your own mind! No spin here! Also, my bet is that the first canidate to tell the world like it is, without spin, and actually be human (not just act the part!) will win the Oval Office in 2008! Just my early guesses....

August, 31st, 2005

Dear Senator Hatch,

Thank you very much for responding to my first letter in such detail. However, your response has compelled me to respond with further questions. As such, this letter will be divided into two parts. The first will explore questions from my first letter, where I feel your answers were insufficient. Second, I have questions about your reasoning behind H.J. Res. 10, which you laid out in your letter.

Part One

First, you gave me examples of what you would consider desecration; however, it is still a very broad term. Would you consider clothing that uses patterns from the flag desecration? How about those little magnetic ribbon bumper stickers that I see on cars? If your aim is to protect the flag, then where do you draw the line on desecration? Does distorting the flag only become desecration when it offends you, or someone else? Please give me more information on this point.

Second, you failed to respond entirely to my question on whether shredding the copies of the Declaration of Independence would destroy my right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. This is very similar to burning a flag. By shredding a document that symbolizes an ideal, have you successfully destroyed the ideal, or simply the piece of paper? I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Third, you also failed to answer my question on why you are spending your energies on this legislation when the country is facing so many more serious problems. Please explain this to me.

Part Two

Fourth, you note in your letter that this amendment would make nothing illegal and you are quite correct. However, where do you think is this leading? I suspect that if this amendment becomes part of the U.S. Constitution that Congress will use this new authority to pass a law prohibiting the physical desecration of the United States Flag. The Supreme Court has already ruled that this conduct is legal under the First Amendment. What would you think of an amendment that would give Congress the power to limit the freedom of the press? Essentially, it’s the same idea, giving Congress the power to infringe on our most basic of rights. Please explain to me how your amendment is any less ludicrous than my preceding example.

Fifth, you mention that the Supreme Court should only rule on existing law. I think that they did rule on existing law. The First Amendment has been existing law for over two centuries now. Congress is not perfect, and has gotten things wrong in the past. When that has happened, either Congress has corrected itself, or the Supreme Court has forced such corrective action. For example, the ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education forced corrective action by desegregating schools. The system of checks and balances laid out in the Constitution inherently leads to some legislating from the bench. It is a method of redress, intended to protect the rights of the minority, even the minority that would burn an American Flag in peaceful protest.

Sixth, you mention that some of our Founding Fathers supported legal protections for the flag. Some of these men also condoned slavery and not granting women the right to vote. Does their support make it right to prohibit the burning of the American Flag?

Seventh, you gave an example of proper limits on free speech. This example was that a person cannot blare his or her political views at two o’clock in the morning in a residential area. This is true. However, the reason this limit exists is that there is a victim in your example. People would be disturbed from their sleep! When it comes to peaceful flag burning, or any other type of desecration, I must ask, “Where or who is the victim?” People may be offended, but they are in no way harmed. Please tell me, who is the victim?

Once again, I appreciate your response to my first letter and look forward to hearing from you again. In the interest of time (as this legislation is upcoming), should you wish to respond by email instead of regular mail, that would be fine with me.

Sincerely,
Paul