Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On S. J. Res. 12, the Proposed Flag Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
As Prepared for Delivery from the Senate Floor
June 27, 2006
Listen
to Senator Feingold's Statement
Mr. FEINGOLD: Mr. President, I strongly oppose S.J. Res. 12. Make no
mistake, we are talking here today about modifying the Constitution
of the United States to permit the government to criminalize conduct
that all of us find offensive and wrong, but that is protected by the
First Amendment. This amendment would, for the first time, amend the
Bill of Rights. I cannot support this course.
Let me make one thing clear at the outset. Not a single Senator who
opposes the proposed constitutional amendment, as I do, supports burning
or otherwise showing disrespect to the flag. Not a single one. None
of us think it’s “OK” to burn the flag. None of us
view the flag as “just a piece of cloth.” On those rare
occasions when some malcontent defiles or burns our flag, I join everyone
in this chamber in condemning that action.
But we must also defend the right of all Americans to express their
views about their government, however hateful or spiteful or disrespectful
those views may be, without fear of their government putting them in
jail for those views. America is not simply a nation of symbols, it
is a nation of principles. And the most important principle of all,
the principle that has made this country a beacon of hope and inspiration
for oppressed peoples throughout the world, is the right of free expression.
This amendment threatens that right, so I must oppose it.
We have heard at various times over the years that this amendment has
been debated that permitting protestors to burn the American flag sends
the wrong message to our children about patriotism and respect for our
country. I couldn’t disagree more with that argument. We can send
no better, no stronger, no more meaningful message to our children about
the principles and the values of this country than if we oppose efforts
to undermine freedom of expression, even expression that is undeniably
offensive. When we uphold First Amendment freedoms despite the efforts
of misguided and despicable people who want to provoke our wrath, we
explain what America is really about. Our country and our people are
far too strong to be threatened by those who burn the flag. That, Mr.
President, is a lesson we should proudly teach our children.
Amending the First Amendment so we can bring the full reach of the
criminal law and the power of the state down on political dissenters
will only encourage more people who want to grandstand their dissent
and imagine themselves “martyrs for the cause.” Indeed,
we all know what will happen the minute this amendment goes into force
-- more flag burnings and other outrageous acts of disrespect of the
flag, not fewer. Will the amendment make these acts any more despicable
than they are now? Certainly not. Will it make us love the flag any
more than we do today? Absolutely not.
It has been almost exactly 17 years since the Supreme Court ruled that
flag burning is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment.
Proposals to amend the Constitution arose almost immediately and have
continued unabated. But while the interest of politicians in this course
of action seems as strong as ever, public interest in it seems to be
waning. Opinion polls show support for the amendment has fallen. Amending
the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration is just not the foremost
thing on the minds of the American people. Perhaps that is because it
is long since clear that our republic can survive quite well without
this amendment. Nearly a generation has passed since the Texas v. Johnson
decision, and our nation is still standing strong. That alone shows
that this amendment is a huge overreaction and an entirely unnecessary
step.
The last time that the full Senate voted on, and rejected, this constitutional
amendment was in the year 2000. I think it is fair to say that patriotism
since then has not only survived without this amendment, it has flourished,
and in very difficult times, much more difficult than the country faced
in 1989, when the Supreme Court struck down flag desecration statutes,
or in 1995 when I first voted on the amendment in the Judiciary Committee.
Indeed, Mr. President, outward displays of patriotism are greater today
than they were in 2000. We all know why that is. Our country was viciously
attacked on September 11, 2001. And America responded.
We didn’t need a constitutional amendment to teach Americans
how to love their country. They showed us how to do it by entering burning
buildings to save their fellow citizens who were in danger, by standing
in line for hours to give blood, by driving hundreds of miles to search
through the rubble for survivors and to help in cleanup efforts, by
praying in their houses of worship for the victims of the attacks and
their families.
September 11th inspired our citizens to perform some of the most selfless
acts of bravery and patriotism we have seen in our entire history. No
constitutional amendment could ever match those acts as a demonstration
of patriotism, or create similar acts in the future. We do not need
a constitutional amendment to teach Americans how to love their country
or how to defend it from our enemies.
Mr. President, I know that many veterans fervently support this amendment.
I deeply respect their opinions and their right to urge the Congress
to pass it. But I also want the record to be clear that many of those
who have served our country in battle oppose the amendment as well.
In 1999, a number of veterans formed a group called the Veterans Defending
the Bill of Rights. These veterans, who served our country in five different
wars, strongly believe it is wrong to pass an amendment to protect the
flag that takes away the freedom the flag represents. I’d like
to share with my colleagues the views of these brave veterans, who,
in my opinion, represent the very best of the American spirit.
Let me start with the words of a veteran of our current conflict in
Iraq. Specialist Eric Eliason of Englewood, Colorado, served as an Infantryman
in the Army for three years, including one year overseas as part of
Operation Iraqi Freedom. He said: “We volunteered to go to war
to protect the freedoms in this country, not watch them be taken away.
… I consider myself an independent-minded conservative, and believe
that creating unnecessary amendments to the U.S. Constitution is a betrayal
of conservative principles.”
Another veteran, Brady Bustany of West Hollywood, California, who served
in the Air Force during the Gulf War, put it very simply. He said, “My
military service was not about protecting the flag; it was about protecting
the freedoms behind it. The flag amendment curtails free speech and
expression in a way that should frighten us all.”
A veteran of the Korean War, Jack Heyman of Fort Myers Beach, Florida,
whose great grandfather fought in the Civil War, whose father served
in World War I, and whose son served in Vietnam, explained his opposition
to the amendment this way: “I know of no American veteran who
put his or her life on the line to protect the sanctity of the flag.
That was not why we fulfilled our patriotic duty. We did so and still
do to protect our country and our way of life and to ensure that our
children enjoy the same freedoms for which we fought.”
The leader of Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights is Professor Gary
May of the University of Southern Indiana. Professor May, whose father,
father-in-law, grandfather, and brother also served our country in the
armed forces, lost both legs in the Vietnam War on April 12, 1968, nearly
38 years ago. He opposes this amendment, and because of what he has
sacrificed for his country, he speaks more eloquently than I could ever
hope to about the danger of this amendment. Professor May testified
at the last Senate hearing held on the flag amendment, which, by the
way, was held more than two years ago, on March 10, 2004. Professor
May said:
“Freedom is what makes the United States of America strong
and great, and freedom, including the right to dissent, is what has
kept our democracy going for more than 200 years. And it is freedom
that will continue to keep it strong for my children and the children
of all the people like my father, late father in law, grandfather,
brother, me, and others like us who served honorably and proudly for
freedom.
The pride and honor we feel is not in the flag per se. It is in the
principles for which it stands and the people who have defended them.
My pride and admiration is in our country, its people and its fundamental
principles. I am grateful for the many heroes of our country -- and
especially those in my family. All the sacrifices of those who went
before me would be for naught, if an amendment were added to the Constitution
that cut back on our First Amendment rights for the first time in
the history of our great nation.”
Professor May also provided in his statement excerpts from letters
he has received from other veterans who oppose the amendment. One veteran,
James Lubbock of St. Louis, Missouri, who served in World War II and
who has two sons who served in the Vietnam War, said, “Let’s
not alter the Bill of Rights to save the flag. We should respect the
flag, but we should all cherish the Bill of Rights much, much more.”
Mr. President, these kinds of expressions move me deeply. The service
of our troops shows the awesome power of the American ideal. The willingness
of our young people to serve this country, to risk their lives and endure
unimaginable hardships on our behalf, is not to be taken lightly. I
believe that this remarkable spirit is inspired and nurtured by the
principles on which this country was founded, by our devotion to the
Constitution and the rule of law. We should not trifle with those principles.
Too much is at stake. We know that now, more than ever.
Mr. President, despite the expected close vote, it is clear that this
is a political exercise in an election year. Rather than discussing
health care, jobs, energy independence, or the fight against al Qaeda
and its allies, we are spending several days of precious floor time
as the legislative session winds down, debating a measure that would
undermine the Constitution, while affecting only a handful of miscreants
each year.
Mr. President, I sincerely hope we will remember what this debate today
is really about -- not whether flag burning is a good idea, not whether
we love and respect our flag, not whether patriotism is worth encouraging
and celebrating, but whether the threat to our country from those who
would burn the flag is so great that we must sacrifice the power and
majesty of the First Amendment to the Constitution in order to prosecute
them.
In 1999, the late Senator John Chafee, one of this country’s
great war heroes at Guadalcanal and in the Korean War, testified before
the Judiciary Committee against this amendment. He said: “[W]e
cannot mandate respect and pride in the flag. In fact, ..... taking
steps to require citizens to respect the flag, sullies its significance
and symbolism.” Senator Chafee's words still echo in my mind.
They should serve as a caution to all of us who have the responsibility
to vote on this amendment. What kind of symbol of freedom and liberty
will our flag be if it has to be protected from misguided protesters
by a constitutional amendment?
Mr. President, I will vote to defend our Constitution against this
ill-advised effort to amend it. I urge my colleagues to vote for liberty,
and freedom, and the First Amendment, by voting “No” on
this constitutional amendment. I yield the floor. |
