The Dumbest Law Ever
According to the USA Today, the Senate is currently only one vote shy of the 67 votes needed to pass the "Flag Desecration Amendment." If so, I'm convinced the amendment will go down in history as the dumbest law ever written.
As an initial matter, it's hard to think of anything more un-American than banning a purely symbolic act. It would be the first time we've ever amended our Constitution to curtail the Bill of Rights. We would be carving out a bizarre exception to our most celebrated right, the right to freedom of speech. The new rule would be, in essence, you can say anything you want (but you can't say that).
But let's put aside the fact that we would be trading in an eloquent statement of principle for something that sounds like a Meatloaf song. Let's put aside the fact that we would be joining the ranks of such illustrious regimes as Nazi Germany, Cuba, China, Iran, and Iraq (during the Saddam era). Let's forget all that and assume, for the sake of argument, that there is no more heinous transgression than the desecration of an American flag and that we must do whatever it takes to--God willing--stop this horrible crime for taking place. Assuming all that, is the Flag Desecration Amendment good policy?
The answer to that is--of course--a resounding "no." I, for one, have never felt any real desire or inclination to burn an American flag (or any other flag for that matter). Apparently most Americans are in the same boat because, according to one study, there were only 45 reported flag burning incidents in the first 200 years of the republic (h/t Think Progress). That means there are probably more historical incidents of witch-burning than flag-burning. Maybe we should start debating the Witch Protection Amendment.
But I digress. Back to flag-burning. Despite my natural disinclination (apathy?) toward burning flags, if the Flag Desecration Amendment passes, I'm going to be awfully tempted to burn one for the first time, if for no other reason than to protest the passage of such a mind-bogglingly stupid amendment. And I have a feeling I won't be alone. It seems likely, therefore, that the primary consequence of this amendment will be to dramatically increase the level of flag burning in this country.
If you doubt this is true, just ask Professor Robert Goldstein, who's an expert on the subject. This Senate Report quotes Goldstein as saying: "We've had more than twice as many flag burnings since this became a front page issue in 1989 than in the entire history of the American republic." The report continues:
So there you have it, folks. Not only is banning flag-burning thoroughly un-American, but it's an extraordinarily counterproductive policy. It turns a non-problem into an exponentially more prevalent non-problem. And that's why I can say, with confidence, that the Flag Desecration Amendment is the single dumbest law ever.
As an initial matter, it's hard to think of anything more un-American than banning a purely symbolic act. It would be the first time we've ever amended our Constitution to curtail the Bill of Rights. We would be carving out a bizarre exception to our most celebrated right, the right to freedom of speech. The new rule would be, in essence, you can say anything you want (but you can't say that).
But let's put aside the fact that we would be trading in an eloquent statement of principle for something that sounds like a Meatloaf song. Let's put aside the fact that we would be joining the ranks of such illustrious regimes as Nazi Germany, Cuba, China, Iran, and Iraq (during the Saddam era). Let's forget all that and assume, for the sake of argument, that there is no more heinous transgression than the desecration of an American flag and that we must do whatever it takes to--God willing--stop this horrible crime for taking place. Assuming all that, is the Flag Desecration Amendment good policy?
The answer to that is--of course--a resounding "no." I, for one, have never felt any real desire or inclination to burn an American flag (or any other flag for that matter). Apparently most Americans are in the same boat because, according to one study, there were only 45 reported flag burning incidents in the first 200 years of the republic (h/t Think Progress). That means there are probably more historical incidents of witch-burning than flag-burning. Maybe we should start debating the Witch Protection Amendment.
But I digress. Back to flag-burning. Despite my natural disinclination (apathy?) toward burning flags, if the Flag Desecration Amendment passes, I'm going to be awfully tempted to burn one for the first time, if for no other reason than to protest the passage of such a mind-bogglingly stupid amendment. And I have a feeling I won't be alone. It seems likely, therefore, that the primary consequence of this amendment will be to dramatically increase the level of flag burning in this country.
If you doubt this is true, just ask Professor Robert Goldstein, who's an expert on the subject. This Senate Report quotes Goldstein as saying: "We've had more than twice as many flag burnings since this became a front page issue in 1989 than in the entire history of the American republic." The report continues:
Professor Goldstein has established that the
number of incidents peaked during the period
after the 1989 Flag Protection Act was in effect,
and that the rate of incidents has more than
tripled since the current effort to amend the
Constitution was initiated. Even with the
increase brought on by the agitation for bans
on flag burning, the actual number of incidents
remains exceedingly low. These facts are
undisputed.
So there you have it, folks. Not only is banning flag-burning thoroughly un-American, but it's an extraordinarily counterproductive policy. It turns a non-problem into an exponentially more prevalent non-problem. And that's why I can say, with confidence, that the Flag Desecration Amendment is the single dumbest law ever.
posted by A.L. at 10:40 PM
11 Comments:
Agree except for one small error. The 21st amendent curtailed right to drink alcohol.
Still, this is an incredibly stupid response to a complete non-issue.
Since it's clear most Americans and all of its leaders care far more than money than America's ideals, let's just make the official flag the $100 bill.
You can bet your ass no one would burn it then.
U.S. Code Collection, Title 4, Chapter 1, Paragraph 8: Respect for the Flag, (k): "The flag, when it is in such condition that ist is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by BURNING (emphasis added)."
Also check out (i): "The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever" (...).
Yet another legislative travesty to appease the isolationists. That's who this is for, right?
Every day, I wake up hoping that the tide is turning; every day, I wake up and listen/watch Washington Journal and I am quickly jarred back into reality, where people strive to chip away at our freedoms.
We're only a couple of hundred years old. A piddle in the history of the world. Yet, we are slowly making an about-face regarding the ideals upon which this Nation was founded. America? We hardly knew ye.
Suppose someone makes flags with 49 stars. It's not an American flag, but looks nearly identical. Burning it would not be illegal.
If you burn it, you're not burning an American flag. Yet, the political statement would be identical because everyone would recognize what is meant.
The amendment is obviously stupid, but then Republicans are in charge.
It is not the cloth of which the flag is manufactured which makes it venerable.
It is merely a symbol, and therefore has no qualities to protect except the principles for which it stands. When demogogues try to make the physical embodiment of freedom the issue, it becomes a smarmy 'gotcha' game that politicians feel they will lose. Burning the flag is symbolic of the freedom to express dissent. That's why the SC has never upheld.
Agreed, let's move on to your view on the wetlands cases.
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS?
OK, suppose I buy a flag and I want to burn it as a protest, whether a left-wing protest against the Iraq war or a right-wing protest against abortion and gun control. The flag, or more accurately, that copy of the flag, is my property. I have a receipt for it. If the government tells me "You can't burn that!" isn't that a "taking" of private property?
Try that argument on your right-wing pals. It might be very amusing.
By the way, I believe that publicly burning the Stars and Stripes is disgusting. But so is picking your nose and eating it, and I don't think we need a constitutional amendment on that subject.
What if an Iraqi insurgent blew up an American flag on a HumVee (and everyone inside)? I mean would the republicans go after them for the flag but give them amnesty for killing the soldiers?
Jon Parker,
There are several large errors in your noting of the "one small error" in AL's piece.
First, AL was talking about the flag burning amendment as curtailing the right of free speech, which is in the Bill of Rights. There is no "right to drink alcohol" guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Second, Prohibition was instituted by the Eighteenth Amendment, not the Twenty-First. The Twenty-First repealed the Eighteenth.
Finally, the Eighteenth Amendment did not, as is commonly believed, prohibit, nor even curtail, the "right" to drink alcohol. It only prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol. If you already had the stuff stocked away you were free to get sloshed to your heart's content, as long as you didn't take a bottle to your friend's house or charge anyone for drinks at your party.
Jon Parker,
There are several large errors in your noting of the "one small error" in AL's piece.
First, AL was talking about the flag burning amendment as curtailing the right of free speech, which is in the Bill of Rights. There is no "right to drink alcohol" guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Second, Prohibition was instituted by the Eighteenth Amendment, not the Twenty-First. The Twenty-First repealed the Eighteenth.
Finally, the Eighteenth Amendment did not, as is commonly believed, prohibit, nor even curtail, the "right" to drink alcohol. It only prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol. If you already had the stuff stocked away you were free to get sloshed to your heart's content, as long as you didn't take a bottle to your friend's house or charge anyone for drinks at your party.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home