You Might Not Like This, But . . .

I know I’m probably going to get a lot of you mad at me for what I’m about to say, but it’s an issue that’s in the news, and I feel compelled to say it anyway. So let’s get on with it: I am not at all comfortable with the idea of amending the Constitution to allow Congress to ban “flag desecration” – whatever that means.

Of course, in practice, it refers to the desire on the part of many to allow the government to pass laws prohibiting the burning of the American flag as a means of protest or political expression.

Let me go ahead and say up front that I am offended as much as the next man when I see anyone burning an American flag as a means of “expression,” especially when the person in question is an American himself. And I agree with many that appealing to the First Amendment’s protection of Freedom of Speech is a very weak argument in the attempt to justify a means of “expression” that demonstrates such a lack of intellect and creativity on the part of those who choose to employ it.

“Expression” and “Speech” can be two very different things. As noted by the editors of National Review, initiating a brawl can be a means of expression, but no reasonable person would argue that such is protected by the First Amendment. “Freedom of Speech” is, in fact, an errant argument to use against the amendment. But it is not the only one that can be made. There is one that, I believe (failing anyone coming forward to – rationally – convince me otherwise), is rational and conservative.

The fact is that those who express concerns over the proposed amendment on First Amendment grounds are not reading far enough down in the Constitution – not surprising since, for many, the Constitution begins and ends with the First Amendment, but that’s the subject for another day.

The argument that I would make against this amendment – one that I haven’t yet heard anyone in the current iteration of this debate discuss – has more to do with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments than the First. These are amendments that make clear the recognition of the right of American citizens to own private property that, all things being equal, cannot be seized or appropriated by the American government.

Many of my friends and associates have heard me say this, but for those who haven’t, if I burn someone else's flag (which I would never do), prosecute me for theft/destruction of someone else's property.

If I take a flag from public property to burn (which I would never do), prosecute me for destruction of public property.

If I endanger lives by burning a flag (which I would never do), prosecute me for reckless endangerment, or whatever the proper charge.

But if I purchase a flag with my own money, take it to my home, and do whatever damage I want to it, including burning it, within the confines of existing law (which I would never do) I don't see how anyone could make a reasonable case against me. Unless we're willing to say that all U.S. Flags are considered public property. But if that’s the case, why doesn’t the government itself provide every citizen with a flag, rather than our having to lay out our private dollars to procure one? And if government can, with the stroke of a pen, establish control over one piece of property that I own, what’s to stop it from doing the same with any piece of property that I own?

Of course, on a separate level I understand that many see this issue as an opportunity to draw a line in the sand and make a stand against the overreaching of the judiciary that has become so rampant in recent years. But I would argue that the courts’ misinterpretation of the laws and their original intent is not necessarily a reflection of a flaw in the law itself as written, therefore there is not a need to rewrite it. The way to address this particular problem is for the people to elect presidents and senators who will ensure that nominees to the federal bench will not use their position to “establish” case law to satisfy some agenda that they personally feel is necessary.

Is the desecration of such a significant symbol of our nation’s glory a cause to be offended? To be sure. But there is no guarantee or right, constitutional or otherwise, against being offended. Frankly, there’s a lot more things going on in America that I wish more people were offended by. Our culture engages in ongoing attempts to assault/desecrate values and institutions that stand to do far more damage to the republic than the destruction of an individual banner. And the answer to this issue has more to do with persuasion than it does coercion to the detriment of basic American liberties. Yes, this is the slippery slope argument, but some slippery slopes really do pose dangers to those who ignore them.