I WILL never forget the last six words of the Pledge of Allegiance: "with liberty and justice for all." I was 9 years old when I first pondered the actual meaning of the short phrase my peers repeated so mechanically every morning. During my brief contemplation I gathered that, every morning, people across the country paid allegiance to a flag that represented a country that had, among other things, liberty for everyone.
As the Senate begins deliberations on an amendment to the Constitution that will overturn the 1989 Supreme Court decision to allow flag burning, the meaning of the words "liberty ... for all" is facing a serious challenge. Politicians who argue for a ban on flag burning essentially are asserting a limitation on the very ideal for which the flag was first hoisted -- liberty. The freedom to burn an American flag is not the controversial freedom that often evokes debate over the amount of liberalism in our society, but is a basic right granted to us under the First Amendment. Furthermore, it is a violation of the Supreme Court ruling that the freedom of thought cannot be limited and also dishonors the memory of those who fought for the principle of freedom.
When the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that banning flag desecration was unconstitutional, its decision was based upon the reasoning that burning a flag was a symbolic form of the freedom of speech, which is a part of the First Amendment. The rallying point for those challenging the 1989 ruling is that the Supreme Court also has ruled in the past that the freedom of speech has certain limitations.
For example, the situation most commonly used is that whimsically yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre is crossing the boundaries of free speech because it would be the direct cause of a riot. However, the crucial difference between yelling "fire" in a movie theatre and burning a flag is that one poses a serious threat to human life, while the other is simply a freedom of expression. The actual act of burning a flag does not pose any injury to others.
If burning a flag were to escalate to a point where human life or property was threatened, we already have laws in place would be used to resolve the situation. Therefore, criminalizing flag burning is not only unnecessary, but an affront to the very framework of the First Amendment.
The scariest implication of the amendment is the possibility that the government would be punishing our thoughts, not just actions. The only proper way of respectfully disposing a flag is by burning it, and supporters of the amendment argue that burning a flag in order to dispose it would not be covered under the ban. It seems, thus, that the government is not punishing the actual act of burning a flag but punishing the intent with which it was burned.
The government would need to make the distinction between those who are burning the flag with anti-American thoughts and those who are burning it simply as the reverential means of disposal. In other words, the government would need to plunge deep into one's thoughts, and then punish them if they are not pro-American. The Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of thought, unlike freedom of speech and action, has no limitations whatsoever.
The often-persuasive battle cry for proponents of the amendment is that burning the flag shows a lack of respect for those who fought for the country. It's interesting, however, that almost every war the United States has been involved in was fought under the banner of freedom. From the Revolutionary War to World War II and even the recent Vietnam and Gulf War conflicts, soldiers sacrificed their lives so that others could enjoy the fruits of liberty.
Denying one the right to burn the flag strips away the very reason why those sacrifices were made. The flag is a red, white and blue piece of cloth that is embroidered with the struggle for freedom, and taking away this very freedom leaves nothing but a commodity that can be purchased at Wal-Mart. Respect for veterans and martyrs comes from respecting the freedom they provided through their sacrifices. As terrible as it sounds, the amendment implies that those who gave their lives in service of the country died not for the ideals of freedom, or liberty, or the constitution; they died for a meaningless piece of cloth.
William Detwiller, National Commander of the American Legion, testified in Congress that "this amendment will ... clarify the importance of patriotism as an American value. It will reinstate respect for the flag as one of the guiding principles of our nation." Quite contrary to Mr. Detwiller's assumption, the amendment will force patriotism upon the people. Patriotism that is enforced under the duress of imprisonment not only undermines the Constitution to which millions of Americans pledge their allegiance, but is also not worthy of the word patriotism.
This amendment has the potential for implications for which we are not prepared. If thoughts are policed, and Americans are not allowed to express their feelings though flag burning, our country will undermine the very tenets upon which it was founded. At such times, the wisdom of the Beatles comes appropriately to mind in their song "Revolution" as they sang, "you say you'll change the constitution, well, we'd all love to change your head."
(Faraz Rana is aCavalier Dailyviewpoint writer.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 23 hours agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 3 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
