Flag-Burning and Hillary
The amendment to ban desecration of the flag failed in the Senate by one vote (I actually missed this entirely, and Boudicca brought it to my attention... what was I doing all day?). This much you know.
But what interests me about the whole matter - which is a bit of a set-up anyway - is the delightful positioning of Sen. Hillary Clinton. To wit:
Senators began debating the amendment Monday, along with an alternative proposal from Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and Bob Bennett, R-Utah. They wanted to ban flag desecration by law rather than by constitutional amendment. That proposal, too, was shot down Tuesday, 64-36.
This move of Hillary's makes absolutely no legal sense. The Supreme Court has said, very clearly, that flag-burning is protected speech. So does Hillary think that Congress has the power to ban protected speech by statute? Or was she trying to score political points for seeming against flag-burning while not actually voting against flag-burning?
Obama '08!
posted by Joshua @ 11:28 PM
6 Comments:
While I certainly see Hillary's move as political posturing, I think there might actually be some sound logical underpinning to her bill. From ABC News' The Note: "That bill would have made certain forms of flag burning illegal (if the flag is stolen, if the burning is done to incite violence or breach the peace, etc)" and would not have made all instances of flag burning illegal. While I don't have the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling on flag burning in front of me (which was 5-4, I believe), I'm willing to bet that there's some wiggle room on the grayer margins for restricting flag burning in certain instances. Much like free speech doesn't let one can't yell fire in a crowded theater, it could likely be argued that flag burning used to incite violence should be illegal as well. And that would still leave room for burning the flag for a peaceful non-violent protest (and wiggle room for the law to argue for particularly cases leading to possible violence, etc).
But, yeah, politically calculated. And $50 says Obama doesn't run in '08.
Personally, I don't think flag burning qua flag burning is so profane as to be legally obscene. Especially if it's done in a restrained manner in a peaceful protest. It's an expression - albeit extreme - of dissatisfaction with the government.
If it's part of a rally wherein people are screaming "DEATH TO AMERICA" and advocating the wholesale slaughter of citizens, well, it's very clearly 'disturbing the peace.'
It's really a question of what makes me more uncomfortable : the burning of the American flag or the idea that we should amend the Consitution to limit a right protected by the First Amendment. And I think the Republic is more important than the symbol of the Republic.
Extreme liberals will burn the flag to protect the constitution. Extreme conservatives will burn the constitution to protect the flag. Hillary will burn both to protect her own political ambitions.
It does set a dangerous precendent to place so much symbolism and magic power in something like the flag. It's already strange enough that we pledged allegiance daily until we graduated from high school....
Interestingly, the pledge of allegience was created by the Directors of the 1893 Worlds Fair as a patriotism-based publicity stunt, much like you see from the different countries before their world cup games. Just another thing that became law (when it shouldn't have) because nobody wanted to be the one voting against patriotism.
Pascals, it may have been showcased at that exposition, but it was written by a socialist to celebrate the 'indivisible' nature of the nation, partly in reaction to the Civil War.
Post a Comment
<< Home