As flag burning is something that has hardly been seen since the Vietnam War, amending the Constitution to deal with this odious but rare form of protest is hardly pressing business. But there it was being pressed again -- because, you see, it is symbolic.They whittle it down to:
In the aisles of Congress, protecting the flag is less symbolic of freedom than of proving patriotism. Those who defend the very idea of what the flag stands for stand in peril of being cast as sympathetic to its destruction.The curious thing is that I was listening to The Honzman on the radio yesterday and (now get this) he's against the Flag burning amendment.
That's right. Fred Honsberger is a left-leaning, commie-loving, 'Murika-hating flag burner!
Who'd'a thunk it?
Seriously, here's the part I never understood about the so-called "Flag Burning" amendment. Take a look at the U.S. Code., Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, Subsection k:
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.[emphasis added]But the code also says (this is subsection g):
The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.But take a look at this (you'll have to head over to see the picture).
Why is George Bush defacing an American Flag?