Do we really need to amend the Constitution over this?

In the latest and perhaps most disgusting display of political grandstanding, the U.S. Senate narrowly avoided amending the U.S. Constitution to empower Congress to ban flag burning as a legitimate form of free speech. Way out here in China, we often miss out on current events back home. So when we heard that the House of Representatives had already passed the amendment (as of June 22) and that it failed in the Senate by only one vote (as of June 27), we were fairly surprised.

Just to keep things straight here, this post is from Michael, who served in the U.S. Army and has since moved on to the U.S. Department of State. Let it not be said that I am short on patriotism, and yet I firmly support the right of every U.S. citizen to burn the U.S. flag as a political statement of protest. I will readily admit that the First Amendment has been stretched to provide protection in some fairly dubious cases, but the purpose of that Amendment is to guarantee that those who disagree with the government can freely express that opposition without censorship. The words with which it opens are unambiguous: "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech."

Let's face it: burning a flag is not a particularly dangerous or violent act. It is, on the contrary, a purely political statement, meant to draw attention rather than explicitly threaten others. Burning a flag has no other impact than communication. It is, therefore, speech, and beyond Congress's authority to legislate.

I wouldn't want to encourage anybody to burn a flag, but it seems to me that the best way to discourage it is to improve the country, not jail folks for defacing a national symbol. I like that it is my responsibility as a representative of the U.S. government to promote democratic ideals here in China, a country that permits its citizens few fundamental political rights. Yet in reading the news this morning I discovered nearly two-thirds of Congress wants undermine the First Amendment in a twisted attempt to convince voters Congress is patriotic. I am embarassed for them. Didn't they learn anything from the insanity promoted by Joe McCarthy? Communism is just a politico-economic philosophy, and yet the uberpatriots of that era assumed that anyone who thinks worker's rights should have primacy is a fundamental threat to American security. I'm not entirely clear how they connected the dots on that one. Clearly they didn't bother studying much about communism.

It would seem that we once again have uberpatriots in our midst, trying to tell Americans that it should be illegal to disagree with Uncle Sam.

For those of you who feel motivated to let your elected representative know how you feel about this proposed legislation, I recommend you go here or here. This is the fourth time since 1989 that our representatives on Capitol Hill have attempted to pass this particular amendment. Odds are good that they will keep trying and will succeed unless constituents discourage them.

End of rant. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled blog.