Constitutional Effrontery

Well, the votes were cast yesterday and apparently in the midst of this political silly season, the Senate still has a few folks with some sense—even if they are predominantly members of the party I seldom agree with! The senior circuit of silliness couldn’t muster the necessary two-thirds vote to propose a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting desecration of the American Flag. It missed by only one vote, but a miss is as good as a mile in this instance.

This summary of the various posturings tells quite a bit: WSJ Best of the Web

Maybe the most frightening item in that collection is the piece about the political science “professor” who somehow imbued the Supreme Court with the power to declare parts of the Constitution un-Constitutional. As the editor of the collection at the link points out, it becomes easier to see how the ignorance in our society gets propagated. While the Supremes can over-rule the legislature and the executive in matters of statute and regulation, they can’t reach so far as to specifically overturn part of the Constitution—in spite of considerable evidence that they can certainly convolute the document.

But, the basic issue remains an emotional one and we should admit up front that emotion trumps reason in almost every instance. Should we tolerate burning of that flag which represents our nation and which has been defended with the blood and honor of so many patriots? The answer remains yes.

The core of the First Amendment is freedom of speech and that freedom wasn’t delineated because we want to have porn on the Internet or gangsta rap on the radio. It was spelled out because it is essential to our republic that people can express their political will. When we restrict speech in any of its various forms, we restrict input of individuals to the political process. The unfortunate problem with that freedom is that more than occasionally the expression will be one that we disagree with.

It is easy to tolerate free speech when it is consistent with our own positions. It gets a whole lot tougher when the speaker is disagreeing with us. It really gets tough when the disagreement is one that is totally repugnant to everything we hold dear. Yet, we shouldn’t find it difficult to recognize that the very essence of free speech is that extreme degree of tolerance.

The facts of the matter are that flag desecration is an uncommon act. It isn’t something that one encounters very often. In fact, I would note that probably none of us have ever seen the act in person. We see news coverage when some loony makes a bid for attention by burning a flag. We see lots of foreign rabble burning homemade flags and effigies of Uncle Sam. But, we don’t see people on street corners lighting up flags with any degree of regularity. It’s a non-problem.

There is a certain element of risk in many parts of our nation for flag-desecrators. They might get talked to fairly aggressively, followed by a punch in the nose. But they are doing it for that very attention-seeking reason. They are expressing a political opinion and they seek observation of that protest. A huge majority disagrees with them and most viewers find the act unacceptable when it occurs. But, the First Amendment offers these miscreants the privilege.

Some day, in the not too distant future, the political panderers of our legislature will muster the two-thirds majorities in both houses to put the flag-burning amendment before the people. Then, I won’t be surprised if three-quarters of the minor league political panderers in the legislatures of the states will ratify it. That will be a dark day for political expression and the First Amendment. My prediction is that shortly thereafter flag-desecration will become a national pastime for the morons of the nation.