The Marines get it; the Senate almost didn't
Two seemingly unrelated stories about the 1st Amendment. First, the Marines have decided that singing tacky songs about offing Iraqis is not a prosecutable offence. It's true that the military has restrictions that civilians don't, but I've noticed that they tend to be persnickety about the Constitution they swore to defend, as witness their support of the Ft. Hood Wiccans against showboating Congressmen like Bob Barr.
But then there was the Senate, and their rejection of the flag-burning amendment by ONE VOTE:
"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."
To the extent that soldiers have died literally "defending the flag", it was a symbolic act, and not a terribly good use of American blood. I'd always thought our soldiers fought and died for freedom...which this is definitely not about. Giving government constitutional powers it did not previously have is a Bad Idea. This isn't just a freedom of speech issue, it's an Establishment Clause issue too, as it sacralizes an object as part of a state religion.
I've helped burn my share of flags. Not American flags; I'm kind of sentimental that way. UN flags, certainly. But it's so hard (and expensive) nowadays to get a flag that burns instead of melts. "These colors don't run" doesn't apply to nylon, evidently.
I'll probably fly the Stars and Stripes this weekend; as I said, I'm sentimental. But there's a Gadsden Flag flying in front of my house 24/7.
Comments