(6/22/2005)

Flag Desecration Amendment Passes House 

Prospects look good for Senate passage

Reflecting results of polling done earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.J. Res. 10, the Cunningham-Murtha flag protection amendment. The 286-130 vote was the sixth consecutive time that the House has approved the amendment.

The amendment reads: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

A survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation, June 16-19, revealed that 81 percent of the American people believe flag desecration should be against the law; 75 percent of those surveyed favored a constitutional amendment that would allow such a law.

Senator John Thune (R-SD), who introduced a flag protection amendment in the Senate a few months ago, said, “I applaud today’s action in the House of Representatives to protect the American flag. We are now closer than ever to protecting the American flag and honoring those who sacrificed so much defending it. As our troops fight to defend the principles of the American flag around the world, Congress has a responsibility to defend the flag at home. I’m optimistic this Senate will find the handful of votes we’ve lacked in the past to protect the American flag.”

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) did not vote for or against the amendment, but Russ Levsen, Herseth's press secretary, said in March 2005 that Herseth supports an amendment to prohibit flag desecration

"It's very clear that both the people and their representatives believe that the flag has value, and indeed it does," said Maj. Gen. Patrick H. Brady (USA Ret.), Chairman of the Board of the Citizens Flag Alliance. "Legalized flag desecration also desecrates our values as a nation. Burning the flag is wrong, but what it teaches is worse. It teaches that the outrageous conduct of a minority is more important than the will of the majority. It teaches that our laws need not reflect our values, and it teaches disrespect for the values embedded in our Constitution as embodied by our flag," noted Brady.

In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Texas v. Johnson, invalidated flag protection laws in 48 states and the District of Columbia. All 50 state legislatures have passed memorializing resolutions asking Congress to pass an amendment and send it back to the states for ratification.

House Minority Leader Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, predictably, denounced the flag protection amendment while draping her language in a cloak of socialist-style "patriotism": "I oppose the flag desecration constitutional amendment...As we approach the Fourth of July, it is a shame that Republicans have devoted Congress' time to this constitutional amendment rather than focusing on the critical needs of our men and women in uniform. Democrats honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women representing our flag with the new GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century which would guarantee access to health care, job opportunity, and education for our troops."

"The voice of the American people has been heard and heeded," said Thomas P. Cadmus, national commander of the 2.7 million-member American Legion. "I salute the House of Representatives for listening to their constituents and voting to return to the American people their God-given right to rule themselves that's been infringed on by the courts and minority special interests. They are returning to the people a fundamental right that had been exercised from our beginning as a nation – the right to protect our flag."

"America's core values embedded in that concept 'We the People' are under attack," asserted Cadmus. "Core values such as reverence and respect for Old Glory, our religious heritage, the Pledge of Allegiance and even Scouting, are all under siege by elements in this country that do not believe in 'We the People.' Today's vote by the House is the first step in diffusing these premeditated attacks on those core values that made this country great."

"This is not a Democrat or Republican issue," Cadmus said. "It is an American issue. The four million members of The American Legion family, indeed, the vast majority of the American people, are counting on the Senate to pass the flag amendment, send it back to all 50 state legislatures and let the people decide." 

In a letter to Congress, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf underscored the importance of protecting the flag, saying, "The flag remains the single, pre-eminent connection among all Americans. It represents our basic commitment to each other and to our country. Legally sanctioned flag desecration can only serve to further undermine this national unity and identity that must be preserved. I am proud to lend my voice to those of a vast majority of Americans who support returning legal protections for the flag. The flag protection constitutional amendment is the only means of returning to the people the right to protect their flag."

Brady said that the desire for the amendment is not just about the flag, but also about America's values. "At a time when America's values are under attack, the action of the House is an important step toward preserving those values." Brady offered that the courts have legalized flag desecration; they have declared unconstitutional the activities of the Boy Scouts, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the display of the Ten Commandments. "Whatever anyone may think of these issues," he said, "these actions are not sanctioned for the courts to decide by the Constitution. They belong to the people to decide."

With passage of the amendment in the House, it will go next to the Senate and with passage there would go to the states for ratification. The last time it was up in 2000, it failed 63-37, but Republicans picked up 4 seats in the last election, and some 65 senators currently serving say they have voted or would vote for the amendment.

Article V of the Constitution requires support from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states for an amendment to become part of the Constitution.

Write a letter to the editor about this article