flag

 FLAG BURNING: Civil libertarians in Congress could help protect nonverbal speech and steal a step on the super-patriots. If the Supreme Court had upheld any law criminalizing flag burning that would have been a horrendous precedent. Nonverbal speech is as worthy of protection as verbal speech. Passing the flag burning amendment would have been a different kind of dangerous precedent. But the danger lies mainly in the precedent, not that particular mode of expression. Liberals in Congress should introduce an amendment that specified that nonverbal expression is protected and increased the percentages needed to amend the Constitution’s protection of the liberties of individuals and by the same amendment authorize Congress to make flag burning a crime. Burning Uncle Sam or the president in effigy would still be protected and all liberties would have more protection against future attacks. That would be a good tradeoff and a propaganda victory for liberals. Also, the sentiments many citizens feel for the flag should not be ignored. The following is  a proposed discussion  and draft of a constitutional amendments.
Any proposed amendment to the Constitution regarding flag desecration would be acceptable only if it were coupled with provisions that made it more difficult to take away the right to criticize public officials, their policies, and other guarantees of the rights of individuals. Such a provision could read as follows:
Sec. 1. [The flag burning amendment previously submitted could appear here.]
Sec. 2. Neither Congress nor any State shall make any law abridging freedom of nonverbal speech, except as allowed by section one of this amendment.
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding Article V of the original Constitution, none of the protections of the people contained Article I, Section 9, paragraphs two and three, Article IV, section 2, Amendments I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI shall be abrogated by any amendment ratified after this one, except that the Congress, whenever three-quarters of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose such abrogating amendments to this Constitution, or on application of the legislatures of three-quarters of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing such amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by three-fourths of the several states, passed in each of these states by either the concurrence of three-fifths of the members of each house of the legislature and the chief executive, or by the concurrence of four-fifths of the members of each house of the legislature, or by conventions in four-fifths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

I suppose that if this modification were acceptable to members of the Congress many would want to table it until a school prayer amendment was passed or except such an amendment from the modification suggested here. That’s another matter. Also, note that I don’t include the Second Amendment among the protections of individuals.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this