Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Protecting Old Glory

Sunday, April 9, 2000 | 10:42 a.m.

By a vote of 63-37 the U.S. Senate fell four votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to approve a constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag. Only 12 Democrats, among them Nevada's Sen. Harry Reid, joined the 51 Republicans voting for the amendment. Among the Democrats voting against the ban was the surprise switcheroo of Nevada's Sen. Richard Bryan. It was a surprise because before Bryan announced he wouldn't run for re-election in 2000, he always voted to protect the flag.

In keeping with the belief of most members of the press, the morning newspaper praised Bryan's new-found constitutional religion in an editorial. Here at the Sun our own Brian Greenspun in this column space also agreed with Bryan's vote, as does our editorial page editor Mike Campbell and several of my other colleagues. They, like Bryan, have the right to oppose the proposed constitutional amendment. Unlike the senator, they have all been consistent in their beliefs over the years.

As in the past, I'm more than a little insulted by the argument that this proposed constitutional amendment will infringe on our right of free speech. It reads, "Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." A wild stretch of the imagination is necessary to believe that this even comes close to limiting our right to speak, write or march against those things in government and society with which we disagree. If it does, then the First Amendment in the minds of those people must be near death.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., says that "To burn an object in order to demonstrate contempt for it is not speech; it's the antithesis. It is not a form of argument -- it is an act of contempt for the very idea of reasoned argument. Flag burning is no more speech than a child's temper tantrum, and to suggest the Framers intended to protect such childish displays of pique is demeaning and degrading. Free speech has never been absolute, as our laws against obscenity, libel, slander and copyright infringement attest."

The House, with the votes of Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., passed the proposed amendment with more than the necessary two-thirds majority.

Last year, when this latest constitutional amendment was proposed, the American Civil Liberties Union took its expected shot at those who supported it. This time it was Berkley who received the heat from the supporters of flag burning. At the same time last May its Washington lobbyist, Terri Schroeder, told Tim Starks of the Donrey Washington Bureau that they had hopes for a change on the part of Bryan. Schroeder said, "I still hope Sen. Bryan will reconsider the implication of his vote, particularly because he is leaving, and he can stand on principle." It appeared that Schroeder thought she knew Bryan better than those of us who are his friends and supporters here at home. We believed that he always stood on principle when campaigning and representing us in Washington. Certainly he has been a good and trusted public servant for more than 30 years.

Bryan told Sun writer Benjamin Grove that he would support a law that would punish flag burners, but not a constitutional amendment. "My view is, see if a statute might do it," Bryan said. I agree with the senator, but allow me to remind him that the need for a constitutional amendment was created by the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled against both state and federal statutes protecting the flag. In 1989 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against a Texas flag desecration law and a year later the same court, in U.S. vs. Eichman, declared the Flag Protection Act passed by Congress unconstitutional. Bryan was our junior senator at the time of these rulings.

Nobody should question the patriotism of Bryan or the other people voting against the amendment. Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., is in a tight race for his seat, challenged by popular Republican Gov. George Allen. Robb, a Marine officer who saw combat in Vietnam, took to the Senate floor to speak against the amendment. This took political courage when representing a military veteran-loaded state like Virginia. Yes, and in a matter of hours Allen was using it against him.

Showing an equal amount of, if not more, courage are the elected officials willing to take a beating from the press for supporting flag protection. It's not pleasant for officials to have their motives questioned and be accused of "wrapping themselves in the flag" as political scoundrels. These attacks increase with the passage of time and will continue until our nation again faces a major international armed crisis.

One of the great advantages of being an American is my opportunity to disagree with respected elected officials like Bryan and the members of my chosen profession. When it comes to protecting the flag I will continue to advocate my strong position as I have for all of my life. Not even an ACLU lobbyist will change my mind.