Chicago Sun Times Editorial - Ill-starred flag amendment would do nation no good
Chicago Sun Times Editorial - Ill-starred flag amendment would do nation no good
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
June 21, 2006
Nearly 30 years after Cubs outfielder Rick Monday snatched an American flag from two idiots at Dodger Stadium who had doused it in lighter fluid and were trying to light it with a match, we still applaud him for his exemplary act of patriotism -- for acting on our behalf. As devoted as we are to free speech, we would have been hard-pressed to bottle our anger over the desecration of the Stars and Stripes before tens of thousands of spectators.
Our appreciation of Monday was not diminished by his appearance last week at a rally for a proposed flag desecration amendment -- an event at which he exhibited the rescued flag, which was presented to him by the Dodgers. But however heartfelt this gesture was, it was wrongheaded in lending support to a manufactured cause with no real value except a political one, the equivalent of throwing red meat on the table.
You would think, from the emotional momentum this issue has gained in recent times, there is a pressing need for an anti-flag-burning amendment. Most Americans are in favor of it. The House has backed the amendment, and the Senate may well follow suit next week, when it is scheduled to decide on the constitutional ban. Reportedly, it is within a vote or two of the two-thirds majority it needs. In 2000, it fell four votes short.
But, in fact, this is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Flag burnings, which most of us associate with Vietnam-era protests, have all but disappeared from the American landscape. No protests of the war in Iraq (which have been relatively few) have featured flag desecrations. The closest anyone has come to publicly mistreating the flag, arguably, was a case of two athletes wrapping themselves in it at the Olympics.
You might also think this is an issue in need of legal clarification. But, no, the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that as distasteful or offensive as this kind of protest is, it is protected by the First Amendment. A year later, the high court overturned the federal Flag Protection Act. The fact that yet another effort is being mounted tells you not that the principles have changed, but the political climate has. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to alter the Constitution.
This represents the consensus of the Sun-Times News Group of 100 newspapers in the metro Chicago area.
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
June 21, 2006
Nearly 30 years after Cubs outfielder Rick Monday snatched an American flag from two idiots at Dodger Stadium who had doused it in lighter fluid and were trying to light it with a match, we still applaud him for his exemplary act of patriotism -- for acting on our behalf. As devoted as we are to free speech, we would have been hard-pressed to bottle our anger over the desecration of the Stars and Stripes before tens of thousands of spectators.
Our appreciation of Monday was not diminished by his appearance last week at a rally for a proposed flag desecration amendment -- an event at which he exhibited the rescued flag, which was presented to him by the Dodgers. But however heartfelt this gesture was, it was wrongheaded in lending support to a manufactured cause with no real value except a political one, the equivalent of throwing red meat on the table.
You would think, from the emotional momentum this issue has gained in recent times, there is a pressing need for an anti-flag-burning amendment. Most Americans are in favor of it. The House has backed the amendment, and the Senate may well follow suit next week, when it is scheduled to decide on the constitutional ban. Reportedly, it is within a vote or two of the two-thirds majority it needs. In 2000, it fell four votes short.
But, in fact, this is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Flag burnings, which most of us associate with Vietnam-era protests, have all but disappeared from the American landscape. No protests of the war in Iraq (which have been relatively few) have featured flag desecrations. The closest anyone has come to publicly mistreating the flag, arguably, was a case of two athletes wrapping themselves in it at the Olympics.
You might also think this is an issue in need of legal clarification. But, no, the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that as distasteful or offensive as this kind of protest is, it is protected by the First Amendment. A year later, the high court overturned the federal Flag Protection Act. The fact that yet another effort is being mounted tells you not that the principles have changed, but the political climate has. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to alter the Constitution.
This represents the consensus of the Sun-Times News Group of 100 newspapers in the metro Chicago area.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home