• Desecrating the Bill of Rights

    Email Print
    Share

    Every
    few years in recent memory, Congress gets together and passes a Constitutional
    amendment to outlaw flag desecration. The Senate ritually rejects it. Who knows
    how the state legislatures would vote if asked.

    I’ve
    burned an American flag. I helped retire one in an official ceremony at Boy Scout
    camp. When a flag is old and tired, this is the proper method of disposing of
    it. It is not considered unpatriotic, I suppose because those who solemnly retire
    the flag are not doing it because they hate America.

    Do
    protestors, the very, very few among them who burn the American flag, hate America?
    Is that why they do it? Who knows? I don’t believe in hate crime legislation,
    and certainly not when the "victim" is a piece of cloth. That the protected
    victim status would go to "America" — an abstraction with no readily
    stipulated definition — only complicates the matter further.

    Fundamentally
    speaking, as distasteful as burning the flag while hating America might be, it
    is a victimless crime so long as the perpetrator is burning his own private property
    and is not trespassing or imposing forcibly on anyone else’s person on property.
    What the conservatives who become enthralled by the burning Flag Question every
    couple years really wish to accomplish is a suppression of an act of expression
    with which they staunchly disagree. They claim it’s not speech they want to restrict,
    but their impassioned appeals to patriotism and condemnations of inappropriate
    expression betray their true intentions: Free expression, of one type, is exactly
    what they seek to repress.

    The
    Republican politicians, on the other hand, likely see the flag issue as an opportunity
    to keep conservative voters and donors loyal to the Official Conservative Establishment
    — that paragon of godliness, family values and love of country, the GOP. Somehow
    I doubt that these legislators actually weep on those very rare occasions when
    a flag is angrily burned: indeed, without that imagined ubiquitous enemy, unpatriotically
    and maliciously setting the symbol of the American State on fire, they would have
    one fewer call to duty, one fewer demon to protect their frightened constituents
    against, one fewer diversion to distract mainstream America from the political
    catastrophes of war and ever growing public debt.

    For
    at least a good number of Washington Republicans, the flag issue is so great specifically
    because it will never be resolved. Some among them, though, do seem to be genuine
    crusaders in the fight.

    The
    implications of such a policy proposal run deeper than the superficial motivations
    of many of its vocal proponents. After all, the reason the federal government
    simply doesn’t ban flag burning by statute is presumably because it would be unconstitutional
    under the First Amendment (as well as the Ninth and Tenth, but no one pays attention
    to those any more). By proposing to amend the Constitution, the national
    social conservatives are making an admission that burning your own flag
    as an act of protest is currently protected against federal intervention by the
    Bill of Rights.

    Truth
    be told, the Bill of Rights is hardly followed in any serious sense. To the extent
    it has worked as any sort of limit on government power, America owes its liberty,
    peace and tranquility much more to that document than to the flag. But ever since
    the Washington administration, federal politicians have attempted to circumvent,
    and all too often have succeeded in circumventing, the Bill of Rights’ limits
    on government power. From the first National Bank to the Federal Reserve, from
    the Alien and Sedition Acts to Japanese Internment, from the first U.S. invasion
    of Canada to the second war on Iraq, the busybodies in Washington have frequently
    carried out colossal projects for which one searches in vain for Constitutional
    authority.

    For
    some reason, certain kinds of free speech issues are seen as too sacred to suspend
    with a mere federal statute. Campaign finance, commercial speech, and the airwaves
    certainly suffer under more federal regimentation than the First Amendment in
    full force would allow, but some strong and pervasive element in American culture
    does lead most Americans to take pause at the idea of censoring clear-cut political
    protest without at least something as grandiose and official-sounding as the backing
    of a Constitutional amendment.

    And
    so the conservatives and establishment liberals who voted for the flag protection
    amendment decided that protecting the flag was worth changing the Constitution
    for only the eighteenth time since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Technically,
    then, they do not propose at all to violate the Bill of Rights, but rather to
    formally and openly put it aside and throw part of its magic away.

    The
    Bill of Rights is words on paper. The flag is three colors of sewn cloth. They
    are both inanimate symbols whose only powers and influence ultimately come from
    the ways in which human beings interact with them and with each other in respect
    to them. The flag inspires patriotism, but more nationalist State worship than
    the real McCoy, especially these days. The Bill of Rights used to inspire patriotism
    and maybe even an inclination on the part of Americans to guard and defend their
    liberty.

    Almost
    everyone in Congress actively and consistently votes against American liberty.
    Those who desecrate the Bill of Rights and yet feign a tear at the trumped-up
    intellection of Old Glory being burned in protest by dangerous anti-American radicals
    have little understanding of freedom — or America, in the best sense of the word.

    June
    24, 2005

    Anthony
    Gregory [send him mail] is a writer
    and musician who lives in Berkeley, California. He is a research assistant at
    the Independent Institute. See
    his webpage for more articles and
    personal information.

    Anthony
    Gregory Archives

    Email Print
    Share