I thought I would spend just a few moments here addressing the recent failure of the US Senate to approve the proposed Constitutional Amendment against flag desecration.

This is always dangerous ground, especially because it is so easy to be misunderstood. Why? This: I am opposed to US flag desecration. It makes me angry. It is disrespectful to this nation and those who have fought and died to preserve it. It is a shameful act. Further, it appears to me to be not so much intended to make a statement but to encite a riotous response. That said, I believe that the courts have rightly ruled that US flag desecration (when an individual burns a flag that he or she owns) is protected speech under the US Constitution as amended. I am a firm believer that the 1st Amendment exists to protect speech, and very often it must protect unpopular speech. Unfortunately, the courts have not done enough to protect free specch (ala McCain-Feingold Free Speech Abridgement Campaigh Finance Reform). But on flag desecration, I believe, the courts did rightly determine the meaning of the Constitution, as much as I see that right exercised.

Now, that gets us to the point of a Constitutional Amendment banning flag desecration. I am in favor of this Amendment, and I am certainly in favor of the citizens of our fair country having an opportunity to debate the issue and vote on the Amendment. Of course, before we citizens can have our say, our representatives get to have their say, as a proposed Amendment must pass each house of Congress by a 2/3 majority. And today the US Senate was one vote short of passing it with the required majority.

The news accounts are full of people screaming about the proposed Amendment violating the 1st Amendment. I am just completely bumfuzzled that, in the first place, people are stupid enough to make this argument and, in the second place, that there are others stupid enough to accept it.

An Amendment modifies and/or changes the original; therefore, it will “violate” (i.e., run counter to) the original. For example, the Constitution, as written, did not limit the number of terms a President can serve. We have amended the Constitution to change that. Both Presidents Reagan and Clinton favored repealing that amendment. If it were attempted would we all have to suffer the fools who say a repeal is not in order because it doesn’t agree with a previously adopted Amendment? If that were the case, Prohibition would still be upon us all.

What the instant proposed Amendment means is that we all agree that the Constitution restrains the government from restricting speech, even flag desecration (but strangely enough not campaign contributions), and that the citizens, as holders of all powers not expressely granted to the Federal Government, are voluntarily granting the Federal Government the power to restrict speech in the one sense of flag desecration. It means no more and no less. And yes, it is opposed to the 1st Amendment, but the citizenry has the right and power to narrow any and all of the Constitution at any time, as long as proper procedure is followed. We the People can literally Amend the Constitution to make it illegal to say the word “purple” on Tuesdays if we choose so to do.

It should surprise no one that it is mainly conservatives behind the proposed Amendment. We conservatives attempt to work within the framework to change what we view as a problem. If it were a liberal cause, they would not run to the people, because by and large the majority of people do not support their ideals and goals. Liberals do what they always do: run to the courts. If conservatives worked like liberals, we would have long ago had a federal judge on our side of the issue issue and edict from a bench somewhere that was 180 degrees out of phase with what we all know the Constitution to truly say. 

It is diningenous to hear the liberals rant and rave about us not tinkering with Jefferson’s work (in addition to being disingenuous, it shows their utter stupidity: Madison is the father of our Constitution; Jefferson was out of the country as Minister to France. In fact, the Bill of Rights is the work of the 1st Congress, members of which Washington and Jefferson were not, though they were both in favor of the Bill of Rights). But it is hypocrisy of the highest order to have the liberal Left who drone on and on about the Constitution being a “living document” actually revere the work, incorrectly as they may identify the author, of Jefferson. The Libs have no problem messing with the founders when they go after the 2nd Amendment. We have to remember that it’s a “living document.” When the Courts find emanations of penumbras making abortion on demand a divine right that the founders intended to secure for all Americans, no one gives a hoot in heck about the founders’ real work. Originalist theory of the law, championed by justices like Antonin Scalia, is usually subject to boo-hisses and catcalls from the Left, until it fits their purposes. Originalism is a good policy, so how about we follow the original meaning of the Constitution. You don’t like something about the Constitution? Could something be done to make it better? Then there is an original process to change it. Use the amendment power of the Constitution and get the people to assent to a modified contract with their government. It’s simple.

Libs, any time you feel like trying to amend the Constitution, please feel free to give it your best effort. Be on notice, though, that it might be a little tougher to get 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of all the States to buy into your insanity than it has been to get 5 members of the Supreme Court to do so.