Constitutional Oxymoron

Depending on who is doing the talking, it turns out that voting on a proposed amendment to the US Constitution may be unconstitutional. It has honestly been said by some in the US Senate that the proposed Flag Protection Act is an affront to, if not a downright violation of, the first amendment's free speech clause. Those who had opposed this proposed amendment actually suggested that such a proposal cannot become law because it is unconstitutional to begin with. They missed the entire point of the effort.

Aside from the political nonsense that this measure brought out, it is an affront to the voting public that an elected official would actually make such a statement. The whole purpose of the amendment process is to determine the will of the people in a particular matter. This is why a proposal must not only get past the US Senate but must also have the support of thirty-eight states in order to become an amendment to the Constitution.

Like many, I am sensitive to the US flag because there is nothing that make me more aware of the blessing bestowed upon me by my having been born in this nation than to see the flag waving majestically in a gentle breeze. It makes me proud of my own service, and it makes me mindful of so many who have given their lives in defense of everything that mighty flag stands for. To desecrate the flag in any manner is, to me, to spit upon the faces of all who endured the horror of combat and are living with the memories. Though these men and women are not gods in any sense of the word and are not necessarily all heroes in the strictest definition, the very least they deserve from us is respect, admiration, and profound gratitude.

These are also some of the very reasons why I agree with the statement made by Michael Douglas in the movie, "The American President" about how the symbol of this nation has to be about more than just a flag. However, it must also be remembered that once a torch is set to the flag, those who might be at least inclined to listen to what protesters have to say will stop listening, and the cause - whatever it may be - will have lost some support that it otherwise might have been able to count on.

Destruction of property is not a legitimate means of protest under any circumstances, and seeking to cut to the very heart of the symbol so many hold so dear is not the way to win friends and influence people. But I think we've lost so much civility toward one another so much so that we do not care whom we hurt along the way so long as we get our way. It is not unlike Ann Coulter's latest book that is all the rage among extreme right-wingers. She is not trying to make a legitimate argument against liberalism; she's only trying to anger folks, preach to a choir that already agrees with her, and make a lot of money. So as success is measured, she's done this.

So it is with those who would choose to burn a flag in protest. The only ones who may not take offense are those who already agree with the protesters, and nothing will have been accomplished except perhaps to steel the resolve of those who might have otherwise been influenced.

Even if the proposed amendment had become law, it would have accomplished very little. Remember that it was once illegal to burn a US flag until a court decided that doing so was protected by the first amendment, so the first "law-breakers" were not afraid of going to jail then. Why would they be now?