March 07, 2006
Bill Frist's Prepared Remarks On The Flag Burning Amendment

In follow up to my post yesterday reporting on the news about the anti-flag burning amendment, I am posting Senator Frist's prepared floor remarks in the extended entry

• Every morning, we open the Senate by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

• Hand over heart, we pay solemn tribute to the American flag, the sacred symbol of America’s history, values and principles.

• We are reminded that we are but servants, momentary players in the great unfolding of the American story.

• The flag – transcendent, noble, still – commands our humility and binds us in the common project of serving the body politic.

• It is with this understanding that, before Congress adjourns for the Fourth of July recess, I intend to bring the Flag Protection Amendment to the floor.

• The proposed amendment is a simple, one-sentence statement that reads: “The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

• Along with 80% of the American public and all 50 of our state legislatures, I believe that the Constitution should allow states and the federal government to protect our flag.

• Unfortunately, in 1989, the Supreme Court overturned 200 years of precedent and struck down all laws that prohibit flag desecration. I believe their decision was misguided.

• In my view, desecrating the flag is not speech, but an act of physical assault. We know this when we see rioting mobs in foreign countries setting our flag on fire. We can see clearly that they are engaged in a specific act of physical aggression against our country and all that we stand for.

• Whether inside or outside our borders, burning the American flag is intended to intimidate, not to engage in constructive speech.

• I believe the amendment process is the appropriate remedy to the Court’s 1989 decision.

• As Harvard Law professor, Richard Parker, explains:

“The amendment process is essential to the Constitution’s deepest foundation – the principle of popular sovereignty affirmed in its first words, ‘We the people.’ Making use of this process reaffirms and thus preserves that foundation.”

• Since I first won election to the Senate in 1995, I have supported a constitutional amendment to protect our flag.

• The flag is not only the physical symbol of our nation, our pride and our history, but also of our values: freedom, justice, independence, equality and, ultimately, we the people. Protecting the flag won’t stop Americans from exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.

• Countless brave men and women have died defending the American flag. It is but a small, humble act to vote to defend it.


• In the words of my esteemed colleague, Senator Hatch,

“Whatever our differences of party, race, religion, religion or socio-economic status, the flag reminds us that we are very much one people, united in a shared destiny, bonded in a common faith in our nation and the profound belief in personal liberty that our nation protects.”

• I look forward to bringing the Flag Protection Amendment to the floor for debate. And I’m hopeful that we will be able to once and for all give the American people the opportunity to defend this noble symbol of our shared legacy.

###

Posted by Matt Margolis on March 7, 2006 11:35 AM
Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/3280



Comments

I suspect such legislation, however well intentioned, violates the First Amendment.

Posted by: Mark at March 7, 2006 01:18 PM


Mark,

Uh...it is a proposed amendment; meaning if it were ratified, it would trump any first amendment protections to flag burning.

Posted by: Mark Noonan [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 7, 2006 04:33 PM


Your fellow blogger Jonathan R. got this one right: Frist's amendment is pathetic pandering of the first order. But hey, at least he's tackling the really tough, pressing issues that America faces, right?

Posted by: SeesThroughIt at March 7, 2006 09:09 PM


How can it violate the First Amendment?

Before you answer, please look up the meaning of "speech".

Apparently, SCOTUS doesn't know the definition, either, so don't feel too badly.

Posted by: CB [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 7, 2006 10:34 PM


Controlling behavior seems to be a high priority for Frist. The Constitution should not be about prohibitions and exercise of power, nor should it be about enabling federal police forces. I can just see the food fight now as agencies debate who has jurisdiction of flag burning. If it is treated as a felony, then some stupid kid can lose his rights forever.

Posted by: Bob Turner [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 8, 2006 08:24 AM



Post a comment




Remember Me?



(NOTE: You must get this correct, otherwise, your comment will be rejected.)

(you may use HTML tags for style)