Flag "Desecration" What exactly is it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2510-2003Aug29?language=printer

washingtonpost.com

Mr. Bush and the Flag



Sunday, August 31, 2003; Page B06

THE WHITE HOUSE supports the wrongheaded constitutional amendment that
would give Congress the power "to prohibit the physical desecration of
the
flag of the United States." Yet in light of an incident last month, Mr.
Bush should consider whether he might be the first person jailed should
this perennial
foolishness -- passed most recently by the House of Representatives
earlier this year -- ever become part of the Constitution. Mr. Bush, at
a political event
in Livonia, Mich., autographed supporters' flags, an apparent violation
of an obscure provision of American law that details the respect with
which flags
should be treated. "The flag," reads the code, "should never have placed
upon it . . . any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture,
or drawing of
any nature." The last time Congress sought to ban flag-burning, in a
statute the Supreme Court struck down in 1989, it made a criminal out of
anyone who
"defaces" a flag -- language Mr. Bush likewise appears to have violated.
Never mind the fact that he clearly meant no disrespect; if Congress had
the power
to criminalize flag desecration, he would at least arguably be
indictable.

We say arguably because there's no telling what "desecration" actually
means. The proposed amendment is meant to deal with flag-burning, but
what about
that American soldier who, in a moment of unadulterated patriotism,
wrapped a flag around a statue of Saddam Hussein? What about a person
who proudly
wears a ripped T-shirt displaying the flag? Of course, such cases would
never be brought in court. The amendment, in practice, would be used to
punish
only unpopular political expression, expression that, though sometimes
odious, is today unambiguously protected by American constitutional law
-- as it
should be. But the notion that the president, or anyone, could be
charged with signing a flag should not be even arguable. It should be
laughable -- as it
would be if politicians such as Mr. Bush had the guts to stand against
constitutional pollution rather than pandering to it.

© 2003 The Washington Post
Company


Hummm, any thoughts on this one? Are we all the way back in the 60s again? All that progress lost? Or is it worse? I'm feeling a little bit creepy about all this. Patriots Act and constitutional amendments.........John Ashcroft is a scary man.