Pragmatic Speak

Okay, I could rant and rave about this latest waste of time and energy under the heading of more Election Year Legislating, which it clearly is. I’m of course talking about the Senate’s activities to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban the physical desecration of the American flag. You can read about it here on CNN – Senate Panel OKs Flag Desecration Amendment, or if you‘re so inclined, you can actually read about S.J. Res.12 or the already approved H.J.Res.10.

While this clearly political play is just more get-out-the-vote election year politics, like the Gay Marriage amendment losing battle in the Senate last week (previous post), there are some similarities and differences I want to explore. It’s the difference that motivated me to write this morning.

In terms of similarities, well, both of these potential Constitutional Amendments would take away individual rights, or at a minimum could be said to take rights away from the States where they belong. Personally, I have a problem with any Constitutional Amendment that takes something away from Americans as opposed to making sure our fundamental rights are protected. These individual “protections” or “restrictions” don’t belong in the Constitution. At most they are a topic of individual State legislation where the people can decide the issue. Enough said about that.

In terms of differences there’s one BIG ONE that concerns me even though I think/hope this thing will never get passed by the States (but you just NEVER know). That difference is the absolute vagueness of the Flag Desecration Amendment. Let’s face it folks, the word descreation means different things to different people. Even when you add the word “physical” in front of it – the definition is subject to interpretation.

As much as it KILLS me to say anything nice about Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware), at least he had the sense to propose an amendment to the bill that would replace “desecration” with specific types of defilement. That amendment, which was rejected, was intended (he said) to prevent placing too much power in the hands of the Government in terms of defining the term. DING-DING-DING, precisely the problem!

The Gay Marriage Ban amendment would have specifically defined one group to receive rights, and taken rights away from another. I’m not debating the merits of that here. I’m only using it to illustrate my point about the Flag Descecration amendment being radically different in that it GIVES the Government the power to restrict the rights of Americans based on an interpretation – which is NEVER a good idea.

Let’s say this Flag amendment does pass the Senate and somehow gets ratified by thirty-eight State legislatures. What might happen? With what I’d call Constitutional Air-Cover in place upon which laws can be enacted, what individual rights might they take away? Remember, the amendment reads: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States” – what might they prohibit?

Okay, they’d obviously want to ban burning the flag, but let’s hope they include an exclusion for the American Legion which conducts flag retirement ceremonies that involve burning the flags.

Maybe they’d define “physical desecration” of the flag as flying or displaying it improperly with other flags. I don’t know, maybe it’ll be illegal to display the State flag more prominently than the American flag, or to display it within 50 feet of one of those silly yard flags that so many people seem to like. You know the ones, the are so TACKY, but maybe they also “desecrate” the American flag in some people’s minds? Oh, and of course don’t forget the likely law banning the display of the much maligned (unfairly I might add) and evil Confederate Flag anywhere NEAR the American Flag. I can tell you that one will not go over well where I live. Heck, that one would make me a criminal!

Folks, we clearly need to be aware of the waste of time and energy caused by these “voter recruitment drives” masquerading as valid legislative initiatives. They are what they are, and we shouldn’t tolerate them from anyone.

However, it’s much more critical that we be constantly on alert for Constitutional amendments that would give the Government the excuse they need to restrict our fundamental rights based on their interpretation of ANYTHING. At the same time we also need to prevent any amendments that take any rights away, for any specifc group. The Constitution gives Americans fundamental rights that no one can take away – it was never intended as a vehicle for specifically taking rights away from us. That’s the responsibility of the legislative process, but that’s another post entirely!