Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, June 21, 1990 TAG: 9006210115
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By PAUL DELLINGER SOUTHWEST BUREAU
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Boucher, along with Reps. James Cooper of Tennessee and Ron Wyden of Oregon, went before the House Rules Committee Wednesday to ask that their legislation be considered after today's House vote on an amendment aimed at protecting the flag.
The committee decided to allow five hours of debate on the amendment before the vote, and then an hour of debate on the separate statutory provision followed by a vote on that. It would take approval by two-thirds of the House to begin the amendment process, and an Associated Press poll - made before the three congressman offered their alternative - predicted the vote would be close.
Boucher said the other House members will be aware of their statutory proposal before they vote on the amendment. "We're making sure that's the case."
He said the three are sending notices of their proposal to each of the other legislators, and will also discuss it in the debate before the amendment vote.
"Our bill protects both the flag and the Constitution," Boucher said. "Many House members want to do all they can to protect the flag without tampering with the Bill of Rights."
The bill would provide criminal penalties up to $250,000 in fines and two years in prison and could become effective within weeks. The amendment route could take as long as several years for ratification by the required 38 state legislatures.
Cooper said the beauty of the statutory approach is that it would provide immediate flag protection. "Without our proposal, the flag is defenseless for the next several years. Everyone seems to have forgotten that," he said.
The proposed legislation would bring the penalties into effect when a flag belonging to the federal government or located on federal land is damaged, or when a flag is destroyed in a manner intended to provoke imminent violence.
It is based on two premises: that the government has a strong proprietary interest in protecting the flag from intentional damage or destruction when it is a federally owned flag or on federal land, and that flag destruction in a manner intended to provoke violence triggers a legitimate government interest in preserving public safety.
If the U.S. Supreme Court should find one of these rationales unconstitutional, according to the three congressmen, the other would still be in effect.
The provision would not stop someone from buying a flag and torching it in private, "but that's not going to happen," Boucher said. "The people who are burning flags are just a handful of crackpots who are trying to get attention."
"We would like to have a broader bill," Cooper said, "but we are limited by what the current majority of the Supreme Court will allow. We might not catch all the flag-burners under this bill, but we will catch most of them and they will be severely punished."
The proposed legislation would not stop states from enacting their own flag-protection laws, based on the same two legal theories.
by CNB