Congress shall make one law abridging the freedom ...

It's not that I want to burn a flag. It's that I should be able to if I should want to. That is the central principle behind the First Amendment, 45 words that establish five fundamental freedoms that a bunch of nincompoops in the capital would undo with their self-imposed authority to punish flag burners and other desecrators.

Thank goodness it did not pass the Senate last week. Thank goodness a slight majority had the decent sense to actually stand up for freedom instead of trampling it. The flag is a symbol of freedom. Protecting the flag from being used as a symbol in a protest -- yes even burning it -- robs it of its symbolism. And I'd rather protesters burn a flag than something or someone else.


On June 15, the day after Flag Day mind you, a very smart and articulate friend of mine, a retired journalism educator, sent an e-mail emploring everyone to contact Senators and urge a vote against the proposed Constitutional amendment -- the one that barely failed this week. He wrote, in part:

This would be the first time that the First Amendment was amended. Imagine the ramifications if this proposed amendment were to become part of the Constitution.

All the surveys show that the general public has little understanding of the substance and significance of the First Amendment. Politicians are acting politically, and many supporters are acting emotionally. We need politicians with courage and citizens with rational minds to stop
this assault on the First Amendment.

Personally, I strongly oppose flag burning. I believe flag burners are people of poor judgment. I prefer other ways of protest. But I also believe that the flag itself is a symbol of freedom that supports the right of protesters to burn the flag as a means of expressing dissent. I wonder how such an amendment could be enforced. Where would the lines be drawn? Flag etiquette says the flag should not be worn as clothing, yet even some police and military officials wear a flag shoulder patch. Would it be desecration to wear the patch on the butt? Would it be desecration for an artist to depict the flag in a way that offended a government official?

In 1989, the US Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning is free speech protected by the First Amendment. Now the Congress wants to change all that. They want: "Congress shall make 'ONE' law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...."

My friends, we should never be this close to having legislative erosion of the First Amendment. If our schools did a better job of truly teaching the value of the First Amendment, if our school officials did a better job of letting students truly practice the First Amendment, and if our schools abandoned an authoritarian approach to education in favor of a democratic approach, then perhaps we could be nurturing generations that would see and avoid the grave danger to freedom that the currently proposed amendment poses.

He is articulate and passionate and a true First Amendment Freedom Fighter. I admire him. Just this weekend, Frank Rich of The New York Times, wrote on the topic of the narrowly defeated measure. He opened:

"Old Glory lost today," Bill Frist declaimed last week when his second attempt to rewrite the Constitution in a single month went the way of his happy prognosis for Terri Schiavo. Of course it isn't Old Glory that lost when the flag-burning amendment flamed out. The flag always survives the politicians who wrap themselves in it. What really provoked Mr. Frist's crocodile tears was the foiling of yet another ruse to distract Americans from the wreckage in Iraq.

Mr. Rich closed with:

The assault on a free press during our own wartime should be recognized for what it is: another desperate ploy by officials trying to hide their own lethal mistakes in the shadows. It's the antithesis of everything we celebrate with the blazing lights of Independence Day.

Independence Day is this week. While we still have some independence, let's celebrate it.

-- Peoria, Ariz.