THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 3, 1995 TAG: 9509010618
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
SERIES: DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP
Creating new conversations
SOURCE: BY ALEX MARSHALL, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Medium: 96 lines
Those who risked their lives fighting for their country in the armed forces are not overwhelmingly for the idea of ``protecting'' the U.S. flag through a constitutional amendment.
That was one interesting result from reader response to a story last month about the proposed amendment. Nationally, veteran groups are leading the charge to pass it.
The amendment reads:
``The Congress and the states shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''
The drive to pass a constitutional amendment was prompted by Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that said laws prohibiting burning or otherwise desecrating the flag violated the First Amendment right of free speech. Angered veteran groups and conservative politicians organized to give Congress the power the Supreme Court had denied it. The only way to do this is to amend the Constitution.
Both the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary Committee have approved the amendment. Its fate is now in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, Capitol Hill staffers say. Dole will decide when the full Senate votes on the bill, but observers predict it would be sometime this fall.
Among the 15 readers who responded, there was not a lot of middle ground. Some of the most passionate responses came from veterans who opposed the amendment.
Pete Freas of Portsmouth, a retired Navy veteran of the Vietnam War, said he would fly his American flag upside down to protest such an amendment, if it passed, and would encourage other citizens to do the same.
``I fought for the freedoms the flag represents,'' Freas said. ``If necessary I will fight again for those freedoms even if that means burning my beloved flag, flying it upside down, wearing an arm band or going to jail.''
But not all veterans opposed the amendment. Richard Massenburg Sr. of Portsmouth, a Korean War veteran, said patriotism appears to have become unfashionable.
``I am aware that not all veterans share my beliefs,'' Massenburg said. ``But I feel certain the majority feel as I do, for that symbol is what we fought under to bring freedom to this country. . . . I for one will do all in my power to see that the amendment is ratified by my state following passage of the bill once Congress reconvenes this fall.''
If there was a point of distinction between supporters and opponents, it was between the belief of amendment opponents that freedom includes the freedom to dissent, including through the vivid means of burning a flag, and the competing belief of amendment supporters that prohibiting the desecration of a sacred symbol encourages patriotism and community spirit by itself, much as a law prohibiting obscenity might encourage morality.
``The question should NOT be about making flag burning illegal in this country,'' said Kevin Fry of Norfolk. ``It should be about why Americans want to do this in the FIRST place. However, I support a Constitutional Amendment against this lunacy.''
Kaye Cragg of Chesapeake expressed the other viewpoint:
``Freedom means freedom to be unpatriotic,'' Cragg said. ``We'd have nothing to gain by this amendment, but we would lose a powerful means of protest. . . . The flag is a symbol of the United States - It is not the United States itself,'' Cragg said.
Cragg said she understood why both sides were emotional about the issue.
``It represents freedom to both sides. One side feels the flag is our country, right or wrong. The other side feels the flag represents our freedom to oppose government policies, right or wrong.''
Many who favored the amendment did so from a gut feeling that no one should ever burn or trample the flag they love, and that such an action should be prohibited by law if necessary.
``It's our symbol of freedom and everything America stands for,'' said Grace Forbes of Virginia Beach. ``Those who don't like it - go live in another country.''
Among supporters of laws against flag burning, Timothy Minium had one of the more interesting viewpoints. He said rather than pass the amendment, Congress should take away the power of the Supreme Court to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws. Such a proposal would drastically alter that balance of powers between the three branches of government that have been in place for roughly 200 years.
``In England and in most of Europe, judges cannot invalidate the laws of the legislators, and they cannot make up their own laws, like the judges did in the flag-burning case,'' Minium said.
The full Senate is likely to consider the amendment this fall. Virginia's two senators are divided. Sen. John Warner, a Republican, supports it. Sen. Charles S. Robb, a Democrat, supported the bill five years ago but reversed himself after an impassioned speech on the Senate floor.
Robb sided with those who said passing such an amendment would go against the freedoms the flag was meant to protect.
Those who are interested in the bill's passage should contact the offices of Robb or Warner. by CNB