Mr. Speaker,
I rise in support of the rule, although unenthusiastically. I
am not too excited about this process, and certainly I am not
very excited about this proposal to amend the Constitution. As
for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and
very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.
It has been
inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those
who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair.
And an earlier statement was made by the gentleman from Florida
that everybody here is patriotic and nobody's patriotism should
be challenged.
It has also
been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag
that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly
be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel
less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation
on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what
we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with
more than just the flag.
First off,
I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to
the Constitution is to impose values on people that is,
teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism
is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there
will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is
disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make
sure that people have these values that we want to teach. Values
in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion,
and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are
guns, and that means the federal government and others will have
to enforce these laws.
Here we are,
amending the Constitution for a noncrisis. How many cases of flag
burning have we seen? I have seen it on television a few times
in the last year, but it was done on foreign soil, by foreigners,
who had become angry at us over our policies, but I do not see
that many Americans in the streets burning up flags. There were
probably a lot more in previous decades, but in recent years it
averages out to about eight, about eight cases a year, and they
are not all that horrendous. It involves more vandalism, teenagers
taking flags and desecrating the flag and maybe burning it, and
there are local laws against that.
This is all
so unnecessary. There are already laws against vandalism. There
are state laws that say they cannot do it and they can be prosecuted.
So this is overkill.
As a matter
of fact, the Supreme Court has helped to create this. I know a
lot of people depend on the Supreme Court to protect us, but in
many ways, I think the Supreme Court has hurt us. So I agree with
those who are promoting this amendment that the Supreme Court
overreacted, because I think the States should have many more
prerogatives than they do. Many states have these laws, and I
believe that we should have a Supreme Court that would allow more
solutions to occur at the state level. They would be imperfect,
no doubt, it would not be perfect protection of liberty by state
laws. But let me tell my colleagues, when we come here as politicians
and superpatriots and we pass amendments to the Constitution,
that will be less than perfect, then it will be just like the
Supreme Court a poor national solution.
It is a ruling
for everyone, and if we make a mistake, it affects everybody in
every state, and that is what I am afraid we are doing here.
The First
Amendment has been brought up on several occasions, and I am sure
it will be mentioned much more in general debate. This amendment
does not directly violate the First Amendment, but what it does,
it gives Congress the authority to write laws that will violate
the First Amendment, and this is where the trouble is. Nothing
but confusion and litigation can result.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe much good will come of it. A lot
of good intentions are put into the effort, but I see no real
benefit.
It was mentioned
earlier that those who supported campaign finance laws were inconsistent.
And others would say that we do not have to worry about the First
amendment when we are dealing with the flag amendments. But I
would suggest there is another position. Why can we not be for
the First amendment when it comes to campaign finance reform and
not ask the government to regulate the way we spend our money
and advertise, while at the same time supporting the First amendment
here?
It seems
that consistency is absent in this debate.
It is said
by the chairman of the committee that he does not want to hear
much more about the First amendment. We have done it before, so
therefore it must be okay. But we should not give up that easily.
He suggested
that we have amended the Constitution before when the courts have
ruled a certain way. And he is absolutely right, we can do that
and we have done that. But to use the 16th amendment as a beautiful
example of how the Congress solves problems, I would expect the
same kind of dilemma coming out of this amendment as we have out
of the 16th amendment which, by the way, has been questioned by
some historians as not being correctly ratified.
I think one
of our problems has been that we have drifted away from the rule
of law, we have drifted away from saying that laws ought to be
clear and precise and we ought to all have a little interpretation
of the laws.
The gentleman
earlier had said that there are laws against slander so therefore
we do violate the First amendment. Believe me, I have never read
or heard about a legislative body or a judge who argued that you
can lie and commit fraud under the First amendment. But the First
amendment does say "Congress shall write no laws."
That is precise. So even the laws dealing with fraud and slander
should be written by the States. This is not a justification for
us to write an amendment that says Congress shall write laws restricting
expression through the desecration of the flag.
This amendment, as written so far, does not cause the conflict.
It will be the laws that will be written and then we will have
to decide what desecration is and many other things.
Earlier in
the debate it was said that an individual may well be unpatriotic
if he voted against a Defense appropriation bill. I have voted
against the Defense appropriation bill because too much money
in the Defense budget goes to militarism that does not really
protect our country. I do not believe that is being unpatriotic.
Mr. Speaker,
let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I
have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect
for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge
to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case
that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the
Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether
or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the
people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if
this amendment simply restored the state's authority to ban flag
burning, I would enthusiastically support it.
However,
I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit
flag burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and
to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today
we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had
all these many years.
Mr. Speaker,
we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise
this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify
making an exception to the First amendment protections of political
speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro-flag
amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there have been only 16 documented
cases of flag burning in the last two years, and the majority
of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that
is already punishable by local law enforcement!
Let me emphasize
how the First Amendment is written, "Congress shall make
no law.'' That was the spirit of our Nation at that time: "Congress
shall make no laws."
Unfortunately,
Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the
Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property
and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember
that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we
imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate
the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that?
You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags, to arrest him. This is in
many ways patriotism with a gun if your actions do not
fit the official definition of a "patriot,'' we will send
somebody to arrest you.
Fortunately,
Congress has models of flag desecration laws. For example, Saddam
Hussein made desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal offense punishable
by up to 10 years in prison.
It is assumed
that many in the military support this amendment, but in fact
there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides
of this issue. I would like to quote a past national commander
of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said:
"Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols,
but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution
and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our
banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead,
they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents,
our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our
flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation."
Secretary
of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time winner
of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Colin Powell has also expressed
opposition to amending the constitution in this manner:
"I would
not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants.
The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away."
Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not even reach the majority of
cases of flag burning. When we see flag burning on television,
it is usually not American citizens, but foreigners who have strong
objections to what we do overseas, burning the flag. This is what
I see on television and it is the conduct that most angers me.
One of the
very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of
Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they
have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State Department
keeps records of how often the Red Chinese persecute people for
burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an
example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations
are used against Red China in the argument that they should not
have most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy
among those members who claim this amendment does not interfere
with fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for
punishing those who burn the Chinese flag.
Mr. Speaker,
this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech
and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom
of expression of our religion in other people's churches; it is
honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the
property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as
a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property
rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom.
Some claim
that this is not an issue of private property rights because the
flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But
if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe
everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to
spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is community
owned? If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag,
even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and
burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are
liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole
idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is
erroneous.
Finally,
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word "desecration,"
which is traditionally reserved for religious symbols, the authors
of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on the same
plane as the symbol of the church. The practical effect of this
is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular
state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon.
Perhaps this amendment harkens back to the time when the state
was seen as interchangeable with the church. In any case, those
who believe we have "No king but Christ" should be troubled
by this amendment.
We
must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must
be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should
work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag
burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme
Court.