Jackson Free Press

On July 4 Mississippi is a sea of stars and stripes—red, white and blue. Our flag reminds us that the freedoms Americans enjoy were outlined when our founders signed a Constitution that began with three simple words: "We the people." They were words scripted in big bold letters with those thick, broad ink quills our framers used so masterfully. But recent actions in Washington cast doubt on whether "we the people" really means much these days.

Case in point is the Senate's most recent vote to give Americans the ability to protect their flag. A majority of the Senate—Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives – voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would allow the people, through their elected representatives, to pass laws protecting the American flag. It would give elected officials the freedom to pass measures protecting our flag from those very few among us who desecrate it. It failed with 66 votes, only one shy of the 67 needed to send constitutional amendments to the states for ratification.

Some cheered the failure of this amendment. They say it's not needed and that it infringes on "free speech." But anyone who read the amendment could see it has absolutely nothing to do with "free speech" and everything to do with "we the people's" ability to make our own laws.

This amendment doesn't even mention speech. It simply would allow lawmakers across our nation to make laws protecting our flag from any sort of physical desecration. In no instance does it propose to limit speech. It very simply says, "the Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Is the physical desecration of our flag free speech? While most Americans don't think so, a slim minority do and recently have convinced the courts to side with them.

In 1990 five unelected judges on the Supreme Court trumped centuries of tradition and held that burning the American flag is constitutionally-protected speech. This decision instantly overturned existing flag desecration statutes in 48 states and the District of Columbia.

In response, Senator Joe Biden, a Democrat, then the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced the Flag Protection Act. This measure was supported by 91 Senators and signed by the President. But the new law was challenged in court and, again, the court sided with those who would not protect our flag, ruling that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional.

Since 1990, a majority of the American people who want the flag protected from physical desecration has been thwarted by the courts, as has the Senate, which has passed flag protection measures in each of the last five Congresses. Keep in mind that prior to 1990 the Supreme Court had consistently recognized the power of Americans to protect our flag. What changed? The make up of our court, for sure, but not the attitude of the American people who still overwhelmingly want to see our flag protected.

As we celebrate America's 230th birthday, this issue gives most Americans uneasiness about the people's right to govern themselves without the courts' permission. It's supposed to work the other way around. That's why those bold big letters in the Constitution read "we the people" and not "we the courts."

Flag protection needs only one more vote in the Senate. It may take more time, but the overwhelming majority of Americans will act to protect our flag. "We the people" will prevail, and that's something else to celebrate this July 4th. (6/30/06)

Senator Lott welcomes any questions or comments about this column. Write to: U.S. Senator Trent Lott, 487 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 (Attn: Press Office)

Previous Comments

ID

141216

Comment

Trent Lott writes: But recent actions in Washington cast doubt on whether “we the people” really means much these days. I don't have much doubt that "we the people" doesn't mean much to Trent Lott anymore. That's why, if politics were a little more just, Erik Fleming would kick his ass in November. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-07-01T01:09:26-06:00

ID

141217

Comment

Some cheered the failure of this amendment. They say it’s not needed and that it infringes on “free speech.” But anyone who read the amendment could see it has absolutely nothing to do with “free speech” and everything to do with “we the people’s” ability to make our own laws. This amendment doesn’t even mention speech. It simply would allow lawmakers across our nation to make laws protecting our flag from any sort of physical desecration. In no instance does it propose to limit speech. It very simply says, “the Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” Is the physical desecration of our flag free speech? While most Americans don’t think so, a slim minority do and recently have convinced the courts to side with them. In 1990 five unelected judges on the Supreme Court trumped centuries of tradition and held that burning the American flag is constitutionally-protected speech. This decision instantly overturned existing flag desecration statutes in 48 states and the District of Columbia. Of course burning the flag is a form of speech. Anybody who thinks about it for a moment can see that. "Protecting the flag" means deciding that a symbol is more important than what it symbolizes. I guess efforts to do this shouldn't surprise me in an era where we're expected to believe that whatever the "President" says is true just because he said it, and where businesses don't bother to actually try to treat their customers well but think it suffices to say "we care," but I'm afraid I don't buy into that. A book I read years ago (The Bill of Rights by Irving Brant) put it well. To paraphrase: Americans still do not want to accept that the First Amendment protects the right of free people to give bad advice in an obnoxious manner. That's why we get this jingoistic BS from the right wing. Best, Tim

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2006-07-01T08:19:20-06:00

ID

141218

Comment

And the truth is that a clear majority of Americans--54 or 63 percent, depending on which poll you read--actually oppose this amendment because they recognize the First Amendment implications. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-07-01T16:21:12-06:00

ID

141219

Comment

It is an ironic column being that it's masquerading as a way to support freedom. I wonder if he's taken a position on all the others the flag is routinely desecrated (see the Flag Code)—from the metallic door flags to wearing them as clothing. Or, does it only matter if a flag is burned in dissent of something he believes? Is it just fine to disrespect the flag for commercial, advertising and jingoistic purposes? Too bad Sen. Lott is playing us for dumb again. Mississippians deserve better.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-07-01T16:25:57-06:00

ID

141220

Comment

Reminds me of a great line from West Wing (I'm really going to miss that show). Bartlett was faced with a flag burning bill that he knew he had to sign but didn't want to. So he asked, "is there an epidemic of flag burning going on that I don't know about?" Sure...a couple of flags may be burned from time to time. But passing laws or amendments just brings attention to the idiots who do it.

Author

James Hester

Date

2006-07-01T16:33:12-06:00

ID

141221

Comment

Here is what Peggy Noonan wrote in WSJ and I tend to agree with her on this. I don't like flag-burning myself but I don't like being pandered to either. The flag burning amendment is a bad idea, and will not prove, in the end, politically wise or fruitful to any significant degree. Three reasons. One is that the American people can sense, whether they support a constitutional ban or not, that they're being manipulated. They know supporters are playing with their essential patriotism for political profit. They know opponents are, by and large, taking their stand for equally political reasons. They can sense when everyone's posturing. It's not good, in the long term, when people sense you're playing with their deepest emotions, such as their love of country. Second, nobody thinks America is overrun with people burning flags, so the amendment does not seem even to be an exotic response to a real problem. There are a lot of pressing issues before the Congress, and no one thinks this is one of them. Voters know it's hard to do a risky thing like define marriage as a legal entity that can take place only between an adult human male and an adult human female. That actually would take some guts. It's easy--almost embarrassingly so--to make speeches about how much you love the flag. Third, Americans don't always say this or even notice it, but they love their Constitution. They revere it. They don't want it used as a plaything. They want the Constitution treated as a hallowed document that is amended rarely, and only for deep reasons of societal or governmental need. A flag burning amendment is too small bore for such a big thing. I don't think it will come up as a big issue every even numbered year. I think it's going to go away. There's too much else that's really needed.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-07-02T22:04:38-06:00

ID

141222

Comment

Wouldn't he be excited to see our current unelected judges support this amendment. i have written, called, and faxed his office on various issues only to be told what his position is in response. Is it that being elected means your opinion is the majority's opinion or should an elected official continually seek out and consider his constituents comments and concerns. argh.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2006-07-03T18:38:44-06:00

ID

141223

Comment

Happy July 4! [size="24"]A day of independence and freedom!*[/size] [size="8"]*offer void where prohibited, especially if you are a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender American[/size]

Author

Jo-D

Date

2006-07-04T20:19:44-06:00