[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 15557]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            FLAG PROTECTION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 12, 1999

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his 
colleagues the following editorial, ``Flag Deserves Extra 
Protection,''; which appeared in the Wednesday, June 30, 1999, edition 
of the Norfolk Daily News.

                  [From the Daily News, June 30, 1999]

                     Flag Deserves Extra Protection


Court's ruling should be subject to final decision by amendment process

       One member of the House of Representatives was careful to 
     note what is sometimes ignored in the heat of debate. ``We 
     all believe in our country; this is an honest dispute about 
     how we reflect patriotism,'' said Rep. Mel Watt, D-NC., of 
     the proposal to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to 
     ban desecration of the flag.
       That is proper acknowledgment that people who believe flag 
     burning is an offensive act but one protected by the First 
     Amendment may be no less less sincere patriots than those who 
     believe this symbol of the nation is sacred and deserves 
     special protection.
       Opponents to an amendment, however, seem too willing to 
     accept court interpretations of First Amendment issues as 
     final, irreversible truth. When such decisions--especially 
     those so narrowly decided as in the flag burning case--are 
     controversial enough, it is proper that they produce 
     legislative reaction. That can take the form of utilizing the 
     constitutional amendment procedure.
       It is rarely invoked, and requires overwhelming popular 
     support. But the amendment process should not be avoided 
     either because it is difficult or because jurists are thought 
     to have the last word. If it is otherwise, then America is 
     not so much a nation governed by laws as one governed by 
     lawyers--in this case, lawyers who have reached the stature 
     of judges. However objective those learned men and women try 
     to be, the American system did provide for amendments and 
     there are some issues which deserve that attention.
       It will not diminish the Bill of Rights to allow Congress 
     to define and allow either state or federal enforcement of a 
     law or laws which put Old Glory in a special category for 
     protection. It will, instead, provide a small countermeasure 
     to offensive behavior of a sort which deserves no First 
     Amendment protection.
       The argument is not about legitimate free expression, but 
     rather the extent to which free people must tolerate 
     offensive acts. The American people should be given a chance 
     to decide whether or not they want their government to 
     protect their flag from desecrators. The many exceptions to 
     the First Amendment--libelous and slanderous statements, 
     treasonous acts, defacement of property, incitement to riot 
     among them--have been defined by court opinions. In this 
     case, an exception would be made directly by the amendment 
     process.
       It should be allowed to go forward. The House of 
     Representatives decided that it should, and by a 305-124 
     margin. The Senate ought to act positively this time, and 
     acknowledge that the flag deserves to be treated as a living 
     thing.

     

                          ____________________