Protecting the flag at the expense of the Constitution is a bad bargain for America

An amendment to the Constitution barring the burning of the American flag wouldn't be just any amendment. It would be the first time in history that a provision of the Bill of Rights was amended.
That is not an action that should be taken lightly. It is not an action that should be taken to prevent someone from being offended by the provocative action of a protester. It is not an action that should be taken for partisan political purposes.
The U.S. Senate vote Tuesday to advance a flag-burning amendment was done for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time.
For one thing, there is no epidemic of flag-burning in the nation. For another, this is a time when the nation should be pulling together on issues of war, peace, prosperity and justice, not expending energy on a divisive, partisan issue.
The measure failed by the narrowest of margins. Any of the 34 senators who voted against advancing the amendment yesterday can take credit for preserving the spirit of the Founders.
Freedom to disagree
Of course flag burning is reprehensible. And it is offensive. But when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of rights and, especially the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and the right to petition our governors, they were not worried about whether one citizen might offend the sensibilities of another. They were not concerned with protecting symbols, even those symbols we hold dear. They were working to establish a vital democracy, one in which people were free to express themselves and in which every citizen had the right to disagree with government policy.
There are those who say that flag burning is not "speech." But it is obviously a method of expression. Were it not, no one would do it. Were it not, no one would be offended if someone did.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that burning an American flag was a form of speech protected by the Constitution. In response to that ruling, Congress passed a law that would have punished anyone who purposefully mutilated, defaced, burned or trampled on the flag, among other actions. However in 1990, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision invalidated that law, once again coming down on the side of free speech.
Just the other day, the Supreme Court ruled that giving money to a political candidate is also a form of free speech protected by the Constitution. It ruled that Vermont's campaign-finance law that restricts the amount of money candidates for public office may spend in their campaigns is an impermissible form of government censorship.
Money talks
The court found that the same First Amendment that protects a flag-burner's right to use that dramatic if offensive method of expressing his disagreement with policy gives a millionaire the right to spend enormous amounts of money to influence an election. Some supporters of campaign finance reform have found the amount of money being spent on political campaigns to be obscene. But the court has now ruled that no matter how offensive such spending is to some, it is a protected right of Americans.
Interestingly, none of the senators who were eager to amend the Constitution regarding flag desecration suggested that as long as they were trying to fix the Bill of Rights, they might as well address campaign finance reform. We're not complaining.
We're satisfied that the Senate's vote was in the best interest of the nation. If the First Amendment is ever compromised for flag burning, other attacks on its core values will become that much easier. Flag burning today. Campaign finance reform tomorrow. Freedom of religion the next day. Prior restraint of the press the day after that.
Had senators voted to amend the Constitution, they would have taken the nation down a slippery slope that leads to an ugly end.
As dear as the flag is, we should all be more worried about decimating the Constitution than about desecrating Old Glory.