Senator Hatch Responds!

Hey Everyone,

Below is the latest response from Sen. Hatch's office in my ongoing dialogue with him about S.J. 12. I get the sense from the last paragraph of this letter that he does not want to hear from me on this issue ever again! I am wavering whether to respond or not. If I'm able to collect my thoughts well enough, and actually have something to say, I will most certainly respond. Otherwise, I probably won't.

Please let me know your thoughts!

-Paul

Sept. 7, 2005

Dear Paul,

Thank you for writing me again to discuss S.J. Res. 12, the Flag Protection Amendment. I am always pleased to hear from constituents. While you may not be satisfied with my answers, I will do my best to answer your questions.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the Flag Amendment is impermissibly vague. When Congress first considered a statute to prohibit flag desecration in 1989, we settled on a defintion of "desecration" taken from Black's Law Dictionary. We believed that this common legeal definition would provide sufficient guidance to those who would enforce this law. "Desecration" requires that the actor intend to cast contempt on the object in question - in this case the American Flag. Therefore, not only would your example of the "magnetic ribbon bumper stickers" fail to fall within the statutory definition of a "flag" but also their display would not qualify as "desecration".

Nearly every piece of legislation that Congress passes begins with definition o key legal terms. I have no doubt that should the states ratify this amendment, Congress would be able to craft the requisite definitions. Prior to an activist Supreme Court decision that created this constitutional right, 49 of 50 states and the federal government all had flag desecration statutes. The warrantless prosecutions you envision have never been a problem in the past, and I do not anticipate they will be a problem in the future.

Still, other, more serious objections to the Flag Amendment do exist, and you raise several of them. Let me explain my position. First, this issue in no way diverts my attention from other pressing matters. As a member of the Judiciary , Finance, HELP and Intelligence Committees, I am simultaneously working on tax, health and national security policy. As the Chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I am leading the effort to update our copyright laws and patent system. My legislative agenda remains one of the most comprehensive in the Senate, and it in no way suffers from my pursuit of this amendment.

Second, however, I disagree strongly with your suggestion that this is not an important issue. It is critical for both Utah and America. This amendment helps restore the Constitution's original meaning and gives citizens a renewed sense of control over their governing charter. Our Founders never believed that the First Amendment protected a right to flag desecration. In the more than 200 years since the Bill of Rights was adopted, no legislature has ever protected this activity. While I have great respect for our courts, that institutional respect requires that they interpret rather than make the law. In this case they fell short and found a constitutional right where none existed.

Ultimately, I do not agree with you that this is a victimless crime. I believe that it contributes to a coarsening of our culture and deepens our political divides. While I understand that we disagree on this issue, my hope is that we can do so respectfully. I remain committed to the people of Utah, and I hope that we can find some common ground on other issues. Please feel free to contact my office with any other questions or concerns that you might have.

Sincerely yours,
Sen. Hatch