Congress Votes to Burn First Amendment

Today, the House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment against flag desecration by the necessary 2/3 majority and has sent it to the Senate, which is, ironically, supposed to consider it for passage after Independence Day. It is believed that, given the current composition of the Senate, the proposed amendment has the best chance ever of receiving a 2/3 vote there. If it does, it will be sent to the states, 3/4 of which must approve it before it is ratified.

It is bad enough that this passed in the first place, for it reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of or hostility to freedom of expression on the part of a significant number of the lawmakers in the lower house. What is worse is that the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001 were prostituted to rationalize the vote.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.

Not that I have a Ouija board on hand, but I strongly suspect that the victims would rather Congress do whatever it takes to protect the American people from murderers, especially on their own soil. Faced with imminent death, I doubt that indignation about "flag abuse" occupied much space in their minds.

In voting to ban freedom of expression -- even in the delimited (and often despicable) case of burning a flag -- Congress has shown that many of its members do not appreciate the vital importance of rights. And, since rights represent man's freedom of action within society -- action to further his own life -- this vote is a vote against our very lives. How fitting that Rep. Randy Cunningham (quoted above) felt the need to act as if the dead were his target constituency.

It should certainly not be very surprising that Cunningham justified his vote on what he claimed to be the wishes of the World Trade Center victims. The fundamental purpose of a government is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force. It achieves this by means of a monopoly on the use of force, which it uses to jail criminals, enforce contracts, and wage wars -- against those who would violate the rights of its citizens.

But in prohibiting flag desecration, the government would not be protecting the rights of any citizen. Instead, it would violate their rights -- exactly the opposite of what the government is intended for. And so we have a congressman preposterously claiming that someone whose government has already failed to protect his very life would want, of all things, a ban on flag-burning. This man has it so backwards that he even focuses on the dead, who need no government protection!

But what do I, John Q. Public, know? I'm obviously "out of touch with public sentiment" and completely ignorant of what Congress should be doing.

-- CAV

Crossposted to the Egosphere