For all of those readers who recall my letters to Senator Hatch regarding S.J. 12 (An Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit physical desecration of the U.S. Flag), here is an update on the issue...
The House passed the resolution some time ago. Yesterday, the Senate failed to do so. The vote was 66-34 in favor of the amendment, one vote shy of the 2/3 neccessary to move the amendment onto the states for ratification. This vote was interesting and disturbing to me. It was interesting because it did not split down party lines as I thought it might. The disturbing part was that this amendment came so very close to passage. Of course that wouldn't be the end of the battle, but I think 38 state legislatures would ratify it pretty quick. To see the breakdown of how senators voted, click here (The 2 from IL voted Nay).
The original author, Senator Hatch, of course voted for his own work (I expected nothing less). The other Utah Senator, Bennett voted Nay. While I am not sure why Bennett voted Nay, I did find what Hatch had to say after the vote... (credit hatch.senate.gov)
“This amendment would give back to Congress the power the Supreme Court usurped from it 17 years ago when five unelected justices rejected 200 years of statutes that protected Old Glory. This amendment wouldn’t change the Constitution, it would restore it to what it was before the Supreme Court altered it.
“While banning flag desecration is important to the majority of Americans, this amendment is about more than the flag. It’s a message to activist judges that enough is enough. This amendment is a way for Congress to stand up and say to the Supreme Court we won’t sit idly by when you to usurp the power of the people. Fifty state legislatures have petitioned Congress for this amendment, and passage of it would have given power of their nation’s greatest symbol back to them.
“This is a setback, but it’s not a final defeat. For protecting the Stars and Stripes, I will not give up and I will not surrender.”
On the other hand, here is what Senator Obama, from Illinois had to say about the issue:
"I cannot imagine anything more abhorrent to a veteran than seeing the flag they fought for being burned to make a political point. I too have great pride in our flag. I share outrage at the thought of it being disrespected. And though I have never seen anyone burn a flag, if I did, it would take every ounce of restraint I had not to haul off and hit them.
"But we live in a country of laws. Laws are what stop people from resorting to physical violence to settle disagreements, and laws are what protect free speech. And when I became a Senator, I swore an oath to protect the Constitution. Under that oath, my first allegiance is not to a political party, or to an ideology, or to a president, or even to popular opinion, but to the Constitution and to the rule of law.
"The Framers made it difficult to amend the Constitution because our founding document should not be changed just because of political concerns or temporary problems. And even the strongest supporters of this amendment are hard-pressed to find more than a few instances of flag burning each year. Those problems were left to be solved through legislation, and I support legislation introduced by Senator Durbin that makes it illegal to burn the flag without changing the Constitution. The Constitution has only been amended 27 times. These amendments include guarantees of our most basic freedoms, the freedom of religion, the right to a trial by jury, the protection against cruel punishment.
"Today, there are hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops risking their lives for their country, looking to us to come up with a plan to win the peace so they can come home. Across America, there are millions who are looking for us to do something about health care, about education, about energy. The Senate will likely be in session for about 50 more days for the rest of this year. To spend the precious time we have left battling an epidemic of flag burning that does not exist is a disservice to our country.
"As Richard Savage of Bloomington, Illinois wrote to me, "I am a Vietnam veteran and Republican. . . . Those who would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but amending the Constitution would destroy part of freedom itself." Mr. Savage is right, which is why I will vote against this amendment. Senator Durbin's amendment is a way forward to balance our respect for the flag with reverence for the Constitution."
I do not support regular ole' legislation banning the non-existent epidemic. It is regular legislation that the Supreme Court struck down to begin with. However, I think Senator Obama, is right that the Senate has much more important business at hand. (credit obama.senate.gov)
I think perhaps, a pair of well framed letters to my current Senators is in order.
Anyway, enough for now.
-Paul
21 Months
11 years ago
1 comment:
you know, i agree with the guy that said that flag burning would rip his heart out but he can't vote for the amendment. people can say all sorts of stuff that'll tear me apart and it's fine (according to constitution). but hey that's what the flag represents. i saw a flag retired once, it was an extremely emotional thing for me (unusual as that is). an unsactioned flag burning is akin to severe blasphemy. that's why they died, not to be disrespected, but give people that option.
Post a Comment