Flag burning: hot or not?

An attempt to modify the US Constitution and outlaw the desecration of the American flag failed by just one vote in the Senate yesterday, as Republicans and Democrats argued over whether the country's national symbol deserved special legal protection.

It was the second time in less than a month that a constitutional amendment largely popular among American conservatives was presented to Congress. An effort to use the constitution to ban gay marriage in America was comprehensively defeated on June 7.

Commentators in Washington see no coincidence that questions of "American values", seen as vote-winners for Republicans, are enjoying attention in the run-up to this November's mid-term congressional elections.

Yesterday's vote — the fourth on flag desecration since 1989, when the US Supreme Court ruled that the burning of the Stars and Stripes was protected by the freedom of speech — was excruciatingly close. Only the defection of three Republican Senators, including the party's likely next leader of Congress, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, prevented the measure from reaching the necessary 67 votes.

Had the amendment, to allow Congress "to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States", been approved, it would have been passed to America's 50 state legislatures. Approval from 38 of them would have seen a 28th amendment added to the Constitution. Opinion polls show that most Americans approve of some kind of anti-flag burning legislation.

In the two days of debate that preceded the vote, America heard the familiar back-and-forth of free speech and patriotism that colours the issue. Speaking for the protection of Old Glory, the Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist said: “Countless men and women have died defending that flag. It is but a small humble act for us to defend it.”

Supporting the right to dissent, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated veteran who lost an arm fighting in the Second World War, said: "This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is unpatriotic. But I believe Americans gave their lives in many wars to make certain all Americans have a right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts."

The New York Times points out how some Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have wrapped themselves up by supporting legislation that bans flag burning, but opposing a constitutional amendment. The tactics reflect the dilemma over "whether the key to electoral success rests in winning over centrists or by drawing clear distinctions with Republicans by staking out unapologetically liberal positions".

A simpler question is whether the Stars and Stripes needs protecting at all. The Citizens Flag Alliance, a coalition of veterans' groups that claims to have spent around $25 million campaigning for the amendment, reports that there have been just four instances of flag desecration so far in 2006. In 2005, there were 12, including the burning of two flags at the Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library in Kansas.

In light of this, a reporter from The Washington Post spent yesterday asking senators whether flag desecration was the most important issue facing America: "'No, no, not even close,' said Senator John Ensign (Republican, Nevada), who... nevertheless signed on as a co-sponsor of the amendment". Liberal bloggings from the Huffington Post and Wonkette make a similar point. For your flame-proof Stars and Stripes, try this.

Comments

[JokesFunnn]

Do you know how to save a drowning lawyer?
No? Good!

[Cameronmalaysia]

Hi friends! Please tell me who knows what is Cameroon ?
Cameronmalaysia

[T. J. Cassidy]

A flag-burning amendment would have made flag-burning a chi-chi form of protest. Clearly, the nimrods pushing this have learned nothing from Prohibition.

[Bob Frigo]

Damn. That's the end of my idea for an off-shore flag desecration service! How unlike America - I thought they had enough crazed, obsessive nationalism to vote for anything like this...