If a man proposed paving a map to take care of the potholes in the street, you'd think he was either confused or crazy. And if someone wants his neighbor charged with assault and battery for stomping on his girlfriend's snapshot, why you'd probably just shake your head and smile about the quirkiness in the world. But the U.S. House this past week has been playing at the same insane game - confusing symbol for reality.
Once again, some members of Congress think it's more important to protect the flag than to protect the liberties it symbolizes.Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., introduced an amendment to the Constitution which states that "the Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." As of April 30, there were 274 co-sponsors of House Joint Resolution 54 - the flag protection amendment.
This proposed amendment would empower Congress to restrict political dissent. It would empower Congress, for the first time ever, to limit the scope of the First Amendment.
In order to protect our symbol of liberty, the flag, Congress would desecrate one of our most cherished liberties, the right of political dissent. How is that for confusing symbol for reality? The flag is not liberty. It merely symbolizes our liberty.
HJR54 doesn't ban nor does it criminalize flag desecration - yet. If passed by Congress and ratified, however, the amendment would allow Congress to make flag desecration a criminal act - by a mere majority vote.
HJR54 is only the first step. We don't know where the second step leads - how steep the step, or whether it will drop us off a cliff.
HJR54 offers U.S. citizens a pig in the poke.
In the House last week, Rep. Solomon asked rhetorically: "Look at it this way. What idea does burning a flag communicate? . . . What thought does it express? Obviously, none!"
If that were true, then why the hysteria to pass such an amendment?
Clearly, a message is communicated. And Solomon doesn't like it, nor do most of his fellow House members.
Elected officials seldom like dramatic expressions of political dissent. Inherent in such dissent is criticism of those in power.
George Washington knew that. He defaced a British flag by ordering 13 red and white stripes sewn on it. That desecrated flag was called "The Thirteen Rebellious Stripes."
Pennsylvania's first flag was also created by defacing a British flag - a coiled serpent poised to strike was sewn on it. The serpent's strike was aimed at the British ensign positioned above it.
Defacing and desecrating flags is an old and honored form of political protest in this nation - used by our revolutionary forefathers and those who fought on both sides in the Civil War.
During those periods of our history, everyone seemed to understand what was being communicated.
The controversy over flag desecration arose again during the Vietnam War era. It was clear to all who understand political dissent that flag burning was a profound criticism of our foreign policy. The antiwar demonstrators and the Vietnam veterans who burned flags in protest understood very well what they communicated. So did those of us who watched.
Those in power want to castrate this most powerful expression of protest.
Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution gives members of Congress absolute freedom to say whatever they like on the floor of either House - with no legal consequences, even for libeling an ordinary citizen. Yet, these same elected officials would like to limit the people's First Amendment rights.
Somehow, these elected officials have it all backward. Freedom of speech, including symbolic speech, is a fundamental right. It is considered one of the natural rights, one of the inalienable rights that our Declaration of Independence proclaimed significant enough for the colonies to go to war.
This right belongs to the people. It violates the entire notion of liberty for Congress to think it deserves the authority to abridge our freedom of speech. Free speech doesn't emanate from Congress, it comes with our birthright as U.S. citizens.
Rep. David Skaggs, D-Colo., understands the momentous implications of HJR54: "Amending the Constitution," he told the House subcommittee considering the proposal, "is an extremely serious matter. We should consider it only under the most compelling circumstances. Those who propose it should be obliged to meet an exacting standard of proof, proof that clearly demonstrates a serious threat or need, which goes to the fundamental structure of the national government. . . . The proponents of this amendment cannot meet that standard."
Later in his testimony, Skaggs said: "We do not need to amend the Bill of Rights to show our respect for the flag. . . . Our flag commands the deepest respect because it stands for a nation and community that is strong. Strong enough to tolerate diversity and to protect the rights of those expressing unpopular views, and even expressing them on some regrettable occasions in an offensive manner."
Rep. Skaggs, who served with the Marines in Vietnam, said in an interview May 3, "I have gut understanding of where the veteran groups are coming from on this thing. I can remember what it felt like to see the American flag flying over camp coming back in from being out in the bush. But it is a symbol and to elevate the symbol above the freedoms for which it stands is to really turn things upside-down, in my opinion.
"It goes to the central core values of open discussion and debate that are prerequisite to a functioning democracy. And to whittle those down to protect the symbol of them is to get it backwards.
"If the idea is that we insure that we honor the flag and respect the flag, that simply can't be legislated. It is only genuine if it is voluntary. And so the very effort to make sure that we accomplish this mission is a contradiction."
Rep. Skaggs concedes that the House will pass HJR 54 with the necessary two-third majority. But he said there aren't enough votes in the Senate, yet.
People should aim their protest at the Senate.
We must not allow shifting political winds to shred the liberties contained in the Bill of Rights. These are our rights, as against government interference and intrusion.
If the flag means anything, it means these liberties must always fly proudly - never tattered.