I don't think this node can be complete without
Resolution 142 which was entered into consideration by the
House of Representatives on June 23rd,
1999 during the first session of the 106th
Congress. The following is also available online at
The Thomas Server, thomas.loc.gov, courtesy of the
Library of Congress.
God Bless the
Internet!
...
Mr. Stearns submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Congress should have the power to prohibit the desecration of the flag of the United States.
Whereas from Valley Forge to Yugoslavia, in every battlefield where ever American values have been attacked and American lives sacrificed, the flag of the United States has been the shining, indomitable, eternal spirit of American liberty in visual form; Whereas to desecrate such a symbol is to desecrate the memory of the thousands of Americans who have sacrificed their lives to keep that banner flying, intact, and inviolate; and Whereas since Americans have fought and died to defend the flag of the United States, any act of desecration of the flag is profoundly offensive to Americans: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the reasoning of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court leading to the decision in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was flawed;
(2) as a symbol of our Nation, the flag of the United States is unique and deserves to be treated with respect of the highest order; and
(3) the Congress should have the power to prohibit the desecration of the flag of the United States.
...
Now please allow me to summarize the above in layman's terms for those of you who can't understand the legalese doubletalk of the congress. And believe me I understand. It's worse than ebonics. Here's a suitable translation.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Translation: SOMETHIN WE THUNK UP WHILE DRUNK
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Congress should have the power to prohibit the desecration of the flag of the United States.
Translation: We jackasses that you idiots voted to represent you feel we should be able to tell you not to do something. Again.
Whereas from Valley Forge to Yugoslavia, in every battlefield where ever American values have been attacked and American lives sacrificed, the flag of the United States has been the shining, indomitable, eternal spirit of American liberty in visual form;
Translation: Every time we jackasses in power fuck up and consequently order your sons and brothers and fathers into harm's way to clean up the mess we made, that silly thing hanging off a stick and waving in the breeze has been there. We don't know why. But we're afraid that if you idiots figure out you have the God-given right to burn that damn thing, you might start setting some of us on fire and we don't want that.
Whereas to desecrate such a symbol is to desecrate the memory of the thousands of Americans who have sacrificed their lives to keep that banner flying, intact, and inviolate;
Translation: Look stupid. At the drop of a hat we could order the national guard to barge into your house and take all your bootlegs of cable television programs and Moesha reruns. So don't fuck with us. You ain't burning no flags and that's final. Don't make us take back the second amendment while we're at it!
and Whereas since Americans have fought and died to defend the flag of the United States, any act of desecration of the flag is profoundly offensive to Americans:
Translation: And we're still pissed off at George Carlin too!
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
Translation: However we'll still let you take an American flag and turn it into something like a bathing suit or a coffee mug, so long as we can buy stock in your company when it IPO's.
I find number one above particularly interesting. It means the House of Representatives wants to take on the Supreme Court about this issue. Well. At least Mister Stearns wants to take them on. I think right now they got bigger fish to fry than this right now. Actually we should be striving for the opposite. It should not only be accepted behavior for an american to burn his own flag in protest, but it should be required ritual behavior under various conditions. Like the 21 gun salute it should be a rite that is performed regularly. When an AMERICAN burns the american flag, it is not desecration. It is the exercising of our inalienable rights. Now, when some guy in Baghdad burns our flag, of course you know this means war. Even if the congress successfully passed this, and got a president to sign it, any such attempts will hit the Supreme Court as soon as the ACLU can get it in there. This is an attempt on the part of Stearns and others to get re-elected. It's designed to look good and be showy, but it's in blatant disregard for the Constitution and will be overturned by the judicial branch. This is why our founding fathers put the checks and balances into our three branch political system. So idiots like Mister Cliff Stearns of Florida don't make a mistake we'd all soon regret.
Don't Tread On Me.