Related articles:

By 1 vote, effort to protect flag fails My opinion Paul Greenberg : Support keeps growing for flag amendment Senate prepares to vote on protections for flag Senate vote on flag amendment likely to be close Other voices

Driver/Transportation
Winroc Corp
Drivers Health Care
Sonora Behavorial Health
Executive Assistant Health Care
VALOR HOSPICECARE
ON-CALL NURSE General
VALLEY PROTECTIVE SERVICES
SECURITY OFFICERS Driver/Transportation
Pioneer Landscaping
Dieel Fleet Mechanic Health Care
Mountain Land Rehabilitation
Physical Therapist Administrative & Professional
Pima Prevention Partnership
Administrative Assistant

Later this month, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a resolution calling for an amendment to the Constitution that would make desecration of the American flag illegal.

Frankly, there is a temptation to regard congressional interest in this issue as a laughable diversion reserved for election years.

With midterm elections lurking just beyond the summer hiatus, why should senators burden themselves by confronting major issues? It's far easier to wrap yourself in the flag and hope nobody notices that what you're proposing drives a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights.

Which is, in effect, what the U.S. Supreme Court says it would do. In 1989, the court invalidated a Texas flag-burning law. It did so on grounds that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech, an act of dissent protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Flag burning is also the accepted method of disposing of an old and worn-out American flag, which means that burning the flag is all right in one instance and not all right in another. If the amendment ever made it into the Constitution, somebody would have to figure out the intention of the burner.

In its 1989 ruling, the court said: "The government may not prohibit expression simply because it disagrees with its message."

The sentence is loaded, and, unfortunately, its message is often overlooked by those who would limit the civil liberties that make the United States one of the most remarkable democracies in world history.

When the right to free expression is abridged, two entities are involved. There is the state or agency that imposes the restriction, and the person or group whose free expression is restricted. In other words, one group gets to decide what the other group can say, and under what circumstances.

This sounds suspiciously like the foundation of totalitarian regimes across the globe.

If the Constitution is amended, who will decide what constitutes desecration of the flag and what is worthy of prosecution? Is it desecration when college kids run around in American flag shorts?

And if the free expression of one individual or one group is abridged today, will that have a chilling effect on others tomorrow? At what point does control in the interest of one definition of patriotism evolve to repression?

And why are these questions not a major concern to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the amendment's sponsor?

Many veterans support the flag-desecration amendment, but many others oppose it on grounds that they fought and suffered precisely to preserve the liberties we all enjoy, not to erode them until we look like the oppressive governments we have fought overseas.

The amendment that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., expects to bring to the floor this month carves out an exception to the First Amendment, declaring that we can have free speech as long as we don't burn a flag to express our opinions.

We must look at the long-term consequences, or potential consequences, of doing this. As we all know, the flag is sewn into underwear, socks, cowboy shirts, the seat of tattered jeans. It's even painted onto false fingernails. How much of this is irreverent, and should the wearers be arrested?

Since the Supreme Court ruling in 1989, the House has passed a resolution for a constitutional amendment against flag burning six times, but the proposal has never been able to attract the two-thirds majority it needed to pass in the Senate.

We believe there are good reasons for this. For one thing, the amendment addresses a nearly nonexistent condition. Flag-burning incidents are not as ubiquitous as fireworks displays.

Furthermore, while flag burning is offensive, that in itself is no justification for making it illegal. It is, in fact, contrary to American tradition to do so.