On Burning Flags
I guess I had my father watching Now with Bill Moyers last summer. At some point, some guests had him in a sort of lather about Congress’s actions — or rather lack thereof — in addressing anything real.
“Well, you know what Congress is working on this week?” I asked.
“No. What?”
“The Flag Burning Amendment!”
“There’s something that must be addressed immediately.”
Well, here it is again. The House of Representatives, as they do once or twice (maybe even thrice?) a year, has passed a Constitutional Amendment to allow laws to stop the physical desecration of the flag. The Senate is as close as they ever will be (meaning if they can’t pass it now with a 55-45 Republican majority, they probably won’t be able to for another generation) to passing it… but it looks as though it’ll narrowly fail. If it passes, I guess that means after Bush signs it through it’d be there in the air for the states to ratify it. (I don’t know if they would, but I do know that most of the red states will sign on immediately… better to avoid looking at any issue that actually — affects anyone.)
Who? Where? and Why? is there that cares about what? and where? a national epidemic of flag burning, and puts it up as a crucial area of concern for these United States.
I saw a flag burn once. On television. Or rather heard a flag. On radio. In March of 2003, during the blast of war protests immediately following that preliminary “Decapitalization Strike” of “Operation Iraqi Liberation”. Someone set the flag ablaze. A fellow protester was upset at it, and waved the fire away. “And this person just wanted to dance.” Wackiness ensured.
Symbolism unbounded upon the populace. Was there a hew cry from Mississippi to stop that stray flag from being burned? Nay — they were too busy eating Freedom Fries.
It’s up to… Ken Salazar, annoying Democrat-oid of Colorado, to defeat the measure.
But an AP survey Wednesday found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment – one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote, barring a change in position.
Late Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., revealed that she would vote against the measure. “I don’t believe a constitutional amendment is the answer,” Clinton, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said in a statement.
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., remained undecided, a spokesman said.
As for Hillary Clinton’s answer, I’d first like to know what the question is.
“Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center,” said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. “Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.”
I doubt it.