[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3580-H3581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Congress will soon vote on a flag burning 
amendment to the Constitution. This issue arouses great emotions, even 
without any evidence flag burning is a problem. When was the last time 
we heard of a significant incident involving flag burning? It is a 
nonissue, but Congress has managed to make it one while avoiding the 
serious matters of life, liberty, and property.
  As Congress makes plans to attack the flag enemies, it stubbornly 
refuses to consider seriously the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, 
property rights, political propaganda from a government-run educational 
system, taxpayers' paid-for NEA sacrilege, licensing of all broadcast 
networks, or taxpayers' financing of monopolistic political parties, 
let alone the budget, the debt, the deficit, honest money, policing the 
world and the entire welfare state.
  Will the country actually be improved with this amendment? Will true 
patriotism thus thrive as the malcontents are legislated into 
submission? Do we improve the character of angry people because we 
threaten them with a prison cell better occupied by a rapist?
  This whole process fails to address the anger that prompts such 
misguided behavior as flag burning. We have a government growing by 
leaps and bounds, our citizens are fearful of the future and we respond 
by creating the underwear police. Surely flag underwear will be deemed 
a desecration.
  Why is dealing with a symptom of anger and frustration by suppressing 
free expression a moral good?
  The best I can tell is legislative proposals like this come from 
Congress' basic assumption that it can legislate economic equality and 
mold personal behavior. The reasoning goes; if Congress thinks it can 
achieve these goals, why not legislate respect and patriotism, even if 
it does undermine freedom of expression and property ownership.
  Desecration is defined as: ``To divest of a sacred character or 
office, commit sacrilege or blasphemy or to deconsecrate.'' If 
consecrate is ``to make sacred; such as a church or bread or wine'', 
how can we deconsecrate something not first consecrated? Who then 
consecrated the flag? When was it done?
  ``Sacred'' beliefs are those reserved for a religious or Godly 
nature, ``To set apart for the worship of a deity. To make holy.'' Does 
this amendment mean we now concede the flag is a religious symbol? Will 
this amendment, if passed, essentially deify the State?
  There are some, I am sure, who would like to equate the State with 
God. The State's assumption of parental rights is already a deep 
concern to many Americans. Will this encourage more people to accept 
the State as our God? We imply by this amendment that the State is 
elevated to a religion, a dangerous notion and one the founders feared. 
Calling flag burning blasphemous is something we should do with great 
caution.
  Will it not be ironic if the flag is made sacred and we write laws 
against its desecration at the same time we continue to steal 
taxpayers' money to fund the National Endowment for the Arts, which 
truly desecrates Christ and all of Christianity in the name of free 
speech?
  The flag, indeed, is a loved patriotic symbol of American pride and 
freedom. Many of us, I for 5 years, served our country in the military 
fighting for the principles of liberty, but not for the physical cloth 
of which the flag is woven.
  There is confusion between the popular symbol and the real stuff, and 
in the process of protecting our symbols we are about to undermine the 
real stuff: liberty. The whole notion of legislating against 
desecration is vague and undefinable. Burning can be easily identified, 
but should it not matter who paid for the flag? And are there no owners 
of the particular flag involved? Are all flags to be communal property?
  If we pretend flags are universally owned, that means we can use them 
randomly. If there is no individual ownership, how can one buy or sell 
a flag? Should it not be a concern as to where the flag is burned and 
on whose property? With this legislation, the flag will lose its 
identity as property and become a holy government symbol not to be 
desecrated. These are difficult questions but they must be answered.
  Whatever happened to the notion that freedom to express unpopular, 
even obnoxious views, including Marxist views, was the purpose of 
guaranteeing freedom of expression? Of what value is protection of only 
popular and majority-approved opinions? That is a mockery of liberty. 
Soviet citizens had that much freedom. Remember, dissidents who burned 
the Soviet flag were shot.
  A national flag police can only exist in a totalitarian state. We 
should have none of it. Why not police the burning of the Constitution, 
the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation? These 
acts, expressing a radical fringe view, would be as equally repugnant.

[[Page H3581]]

                              Introduction

  The Congress will soon vote on a flag burning amendment to the 
Constitution. This issue arouses great emotions even without any 
evidence flag burning is a problem. When was the last time we heard of 
a significant incident involving flag burning? It's a nonissue but 
Congress has managed to make it one while avoiding the serious matters 
of life, liberty, and property.
  There just is no flag desecration crisis. Where are the 
demonstrators, where are the letters? Will this only lead to more 
discredit on Congress? Only 6 percent of the American people trust 
anything they hear from the Federal Government so why should they 
believe there is a flag crisis requiring an adjustment to the Bill of 
Rights for the first time in our history. Since most of what Congress 
does, leads to unintended consequences, why do we feel compelled to 
solve imaginary problems?
  The American people are way ahead of the U.S. Congress and their 
distrust is a healthy sign the Republic will survive in spite of all 
our good deeds and noble gestures. And that's good.
  What sense of insecurity requires such a public display to reassure 
ourselves we are patriots of the highest caliber, confident enough to 
take on the flag burning movement--a movement yet to raise its ugly 
head. Our political saviors will have us believe that our loyalty to 
America hinges on this lone amendment to the Constitution.
  As Congress makes plans to attack the flag enemies, it stubbornly 
refuses to consider seriously: the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, 
property rights, political propaganda from a government run educational 
system, taxpayer's paid-for NEA sacrilege, licensing of all broadcast 
networks, or taxpayer's financing of monopolistic political parties, 
let alone the budget, the debt, the deficit, honest money, policing the 
world, and the entire welfare state.
  Pervasive bureaucratic government is all around us and now we're 
spending time on developing the next addition to the Federal police 
force--the flag police. Diverting attention away from real problems 
toward a pseudoproblem is not a new technique of politicians.


                               Motivation

  Political grandstanding is probably the greatest motivation behind 
this movement to change the Constitution. It's thought to be easy to 
embarrass those who, on principle, believe and interpret the first 
amendment differently. Those who vote eagerly for this amendment do it 
with good intentions as they laugh at the difficult position in which 
opponents find themselves.
  Will the country actually be improved with this amendment? Will true 
patriotism thus thrive as the malcontents are legislated into 
submission? Do we improve the character of angry people because we 
threaten them with a prison cell, better occupied by a rapist?
  This whole process fails to address the anger that prompts such 
misguided behavior as flag burning. We have a government growing by 
leaps and bounds, our citizens are fearful of the future, and we 
respond by creating the underwear police--surely, flag underwear will 
be deemed a desecration.

  Why is dealing with a symptom of anger and frustration by suppressing 
free expression a moral good?
  The best I can tell is legislative proposals like this come from 
Congress' basic assumption that it can legislate economic equality and 
mold personal behavior. The reasoning goes; if Congress thinks it can 
achieve these goals, why not legislate respect and patriotism even if 
it does undermine freedom of expression and property ownership?


                              desecration

  Desecration is defined as: ``To divest of a sacred character or 
office, commit sacrilege or blasphemy or de-(con)secrate.'' If 
consecrate is ``to make sacred; such as a church or bread and wine,'' 
how can we ``de-consecrate'' something not first ``consecrated?'' Who 
then consecrated the flag? When was it done? ``Sacred beliefs are those 
reserved for a religious or Godly nature, i.e., to set apart for the 
worship of a deity. To make holy.'' Does this amendment mean we now 
concede the flag is a religious symbol? Will this amendment if passed 
essentially deify the state?
  There are some, I'm sure, who would like to equate the state with 
God. The state's assumption of parental rights is already a deep 
concern to many Americans. Will this encourage more people to accept 
the state as our God? We imply by this amendment that the state is 
elevated to a religion--a dangerous notion and one the Founders feared. 
Calling flag burning blasphemous is something we should do with great 
caution.
  Won't it be ironic if the flag is made sacred--consecrated--and we 
write laws against its desecration at the same time we continue to 
steal taxpayer's money to fund the National Endowment for the Arts 
which truly desecrates Christ and all of Christianity in the name of 
free speech? I must repeat this question: Won't it be ironic if the 
flag is made sacred and we write laws against its desecration at the 
same time we continue to steal taxpayer's money to fund the National 
Endowment for the Arts which desecrates Christ and all of Christianity 
in the name of free speech?
  The flag indeed is a loved patriotic symbol of American pride and 
freedom. Many of us, I for 5 years, have served our country in the 
military fighting for the principles of liberty, but not for the 
physical cloth of which the flag is woven.
  There is confusion between the popular symbol and the real stuff, and 
in the process of protecting our symbols we are about to undermine the 
real stuff--liberty. The whole notion of legislating against 
desecration is vague and undefinable. Burning can be easily identified 
but shouldn't it matter who paid for the flag? Are there no owners of 
the particular flag involved? Are all flags to be communal property? If 
we pretend flags are universally owned, that means we can use them 
randomly. If there is no individual ownership how can one sell or buy a 
flag? Should it not be a concern as to where the flag is burned and on 
whose property? With this legislation the flag will lose its identity 
as property and become a holy government symbol not to be desecrated? 
These are difficult questions but they must be answered.

  Will using a flag as underwear or as a beach towel or a handkerchief 
or flying it upside down become a Federal crime?
  The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars burn flags to 
dispose of them. This respectful ritual is distinguished from a hoodlum 
doing it only by the intent. Are we wise enough to define and legislate 
intent under all circumstances? Intent obviously implies an expression 
of a view. So Congress now feels compelled to police intentions, 
especially if seen as unpopular.
  Whatever happened to the notion that freedom to express unpopular, 
even obnoxious views, including Marxist ideas was the purpose of 
guaranteeing freedom of expression. Of what value is protection of only 
popular and majority-approved opinions? that's a mockery of liberty. 
Soviet citizens had that much freedom. Remember, dissidents who burned 
the Soviet flag were shot. A national flag police can only exist in a 
totalitarian state. We should have none of it.
  Why not police the burning of the Constitution, the Declaration of 
Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation? These acts, expressing a 
radical fringe view, would be as equally repugnant, and a case could be 
made they might be even more threatening because their attack would be 
precise and aimed at the heart of American liberty. The answer is the 
political mileage is with the flag and tough luck to those who have 
principled opposition.
  But no one should ever squirm or weasel out of the right vote, even 
if threatened with possible negative political fallout.

                          ____________________