Judiciary
Homepage
Thank you very much, Chairman Canady and panel members, for inviting me here today to testify on protecting our flag.
I also want to commend Mr. Canady and other co-sponsors of this bill. And let me add this: with such good people on my side I can't wait to present this amendment ... first on the floor ... and then to the states for ratification.
But first, with your indulgence Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell you why I think this amendment is so important.
It's important for many reasons. First of all, the overwhelming majority of Americans want this amendment.
In Congress, it's supported by members from both sides of the aisle, in both chambers. The presence of my good friend Sonny Montgomery next to me today is proof of that.
And finally ... and this may be even more important. I'm joined by constitutional scholars in saying this amendment actually strengthens our First Amendment freedoms.
I emphasize that, Mr. Chairman, because some Americans have raised questions about our fundamental freedoms of speech and expression. I have the same concerns they do, and they deserve some straight answers.
Now, I'm not going to spend too much time paying tribute to the flag. I'm sure it's safe to say that reverence for the flag is something everyone in this room shares.
Americans have always felt that way about their flag, and that's why there's so much precedent for what we're doing here today.
Some critics might say that the Supreme Court has spoken on the matter, and that's that! Well, not quite.
In the history of the Supreme Court, few members guarded the First Amendment so jealously as Justice Hugo Black and Chief Justice Earl Warren. Both stated forcefully that there is no First Amendment problem with banning flag desecration.
There is, in other words, nothing that prevents individual states from enacting laws that prohibit physical desecration of the American flag. And I can't make this distinction too forcefully, Mr. Chairman ...
We seek ... not an amendment to ban flag desecration ... but an amendment to allow each of the 50 states to make that decision. The Constitution is designed to curb the federal government, not the states. Where the Constitution is silent, the states may act!
So, yes, you may all see this, if you'd like, as part of the movement to turn power back to the states.
One vote ... I repeat, one vote ... in a 5-4 decision turned the Court's back on the tradition of Justice Black and Chief Justice Warren, and all of a sudden flag-burning became "expression" protected by the First Amendment. But the very analysis of that slim majority didn't support that conclusion.
They said that the government can't prohibit the expression of any idea, just because society finds that idea offensive or disagreeable.
But, the Texas law overturned in that 1989 decision didn't suppress any idea at all.
Look at this way. What idea does burning a flag communicate? What thought does it express? Obviously, none!
Under that Texas statute, and others like it, no one was prevented from speaking about the flag, or even from insulting it verbally. It only said they couldn't burn it.
After all, Mr. Chairman, everyone understands that no "right" is absolute. We can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We can't holler obscenities on the corner of a residential neighborhood and not get arrested for disturbing the peace.
And if I don't like someone, I can say so, but I can't express my dislike by punching him in the nose. When my dislike goes from thoughts, or words, to action, well, then I've crossed the line the Supreme Court itself has drawn in the sand over and over again.
The finest constitutional minds in the country ... including Judge Robert Bork and legal scholars Stephen B. Presser and Richard D. Parker, tell us that this is not a First Amendment issue .
They will tell you-that for any society to survive, there has to be some consensus on limitations. Every viable society has to be able to say: "This you shall not do. We, as a community, find this highly offensive!"
The only alternative is chaos and fragmentation. This is true even in a society as pluralistic and diverse as ours. In such a society, it's all the more important to protect the most important symbol of unity we have. And what's more important than Old Glory? It's what makes us Americans, and not something else.
You know, we're celebrating the 50th anniversary of the battle of Iwo Jim a, and we all know that the marines didn't run a copy of the Constitution up a pole on Mount Suribachi. We don't fly the Presidential Seal at half-mast from our federal buildings. We don't salute the Liberty Bell.
And so it's been across the world. Whether it's been Manila, or Paris, or Kuwait City, whenever American troops have liberated cities from oppressors, they've been greeted by grateful people waving ... not the Constitution, not the presidential seal, not Big Macs or blue jeans ... but the American flag.
And that love of the flag certainly isn't dead in our own country. Eighty percent of the American people want this amendment. Over 80 civic and veterans organizations attended our rally in support of it.
Forty-nine states have asked Congress to pass this amendment. That's 11 more than the 38 needed to ratify it! We're only a few sponsors short in both the House and the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, consensus and reasoned arguments are going to enact this amendment, not the passions and politics of the moment. The very difficulty of amending the Constitution will prevent that from happening, just as it has prevented frivolous amendments for the 200 years.
And so, to sum up .
We're not banning desecration of the flag. We're only giving the states the right to do so, a right they've always had.
Not only does our amendment enhance rather than threaten the First Amendment, but burning the flag is not speech or expression, it's a hateful tantrum.
And finally, the American people ... and the constituents of every member in this room ... want us to pass this amendment.