Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, June 27, 1990 TAG: 9006270131
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
"We will take a meaningless vote so that some campaign operatives can try to bludgeon senators who are willing to stand up for the Bill of Rights and vote against this amendment," Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, declared.
The Senate voted 58-42 in favor, leaving it nine short of the required two-thirds majority needed to approve amendments. Thirty-eight Republicans voted in favor and seven voted against; 20 Democrats voted yes, while 35 voted no.
President Bush has been calling for approval of the measure, which said simply that "Congress and the states shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
But the House rejected it last week, falling 34 votes short of two-thirds with a 254-177 tally in favor. Speaker Thomas Foley said lawmakers would not get a chance to reconsider this year, making the Senate vote largely a symbolic gesture.
Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole of Kansas conceded before the vote that "we're not going to win now." But he said that "we're not going to give up and we'll see what happens in the days and weeks and months ahead."
"In the heartland of America, some folks just can't understand what Congress is up to," Dole said.
In a dramatic switch, Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., declared he had changed his mind since backing the amendment last year.
Robb said that after the Supreme Court declared a Texas flag-burning law unconstitutional last year he as a military veteran felt anger toward flag burners and "feared the visceral outrage of most Americans."
"I have concluded that our flag can better be protected by not tinkering with the First Amendment" to the Constitution, Robb said.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., voted in favor of the amendment.
Conservative supporters held out hope that if the Senate approved the amendment they could somehow revive the measure in the House, while critics said the idea was to put them on record on an emotional issue that could help their challengers.
"Stirred by fears of sound-bites and 30-second spots, members of Congress who should know better are expressing a willingness to sacrifice the Bill of Rights for what they hope will be a benefit in the polls," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
"Those who burn the American flag are fools; let's not dignify them by changing the Bill of Rights," said Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H.
But Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., said the issue was "so important that it should be sent to the states where the American people can decide whether they want to protect the flag."
***CORRECTION***
Published correction ran on June 29, 1990\ The Associated Press in a story in Wednesday's paper erroneously quoted Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., as saying that when the Supreme Court overturned a Texas flag-burning law he "feared the visceral outrage of the American people." Robb said that he "shared the visceral outrage of the American people."
Memo: correction