Flag Amendment
Narrowly Fails
in Senate Vote
By CARL HULSE,
NYTimes on the Web, June 28, 2006
 |
|
|
Jamie Rose for The New York Times
From left,
Senators Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Bill
Frist of Tennessee, all Republicans, spoke Tuesday on Capitol Hill
about a constitutional amendment on desecrating the American flag. |
|
WASHINGTON, June 27 — A proposed
Constitutional amendment to allow Congress to prohibit desecration of the flag
fell a single vote short of approval by the Senate on Tuesday, an excruciatingly
close vote that left unresolved a long-running debate over whether the flag is a
unique national symbol deserving of special legal standing.
The 66-to-34 vote on the amendment was one vote short of the 67 required to send
the amendment to the states for potential ratification as the 28th Amendment.
It was the closest proponents of the initiative have come in four Senate votes
since the Supreme Court first ruled in 1989 that flag burning was a protected
form of free speech.
The opponents — 30 Democrats, 3 Republicans and an independent — asserted that
the amendment would amount to tampering with the Bill of Rights in an effort to
eliminate relatively rare incidents of burning the flag. They said it
violated the very freedoms guaranteed by the symbolism of the flag.
"This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is unpatriotic,"
said Senator Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat who won the Medal of Honor for his
service in World War II. "But I believe Americans gave their lives in many
wars to make certain all Americans have a right to express themselves, even
those who harbor hateful thoughts."
Proponents of the amendment, which was backed by 52 Republicans and 14
Democrats, disputed the assertion that burning the flag was a form of speech.
They said the amendment was simply an effort to reassert Congressional authority
after a misguided court ruling. They said it was particularly appropriate
to act now when American troops are at risk.
"Old Glory lost today," said Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, who
scheduled the debate and vote in the week before Congress broke for its Fourth
of July recess.
The full text of the proposed amendment is, "The Congress shall have power to
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
The vote is likely to be an issue in the Congressional elections in November,
and Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican who was the chief sponsor of the
amendment, predicted the minority who opposed it would be held accountable by
the voters.
"I think this is getting to where they are not going to be able to escape the
wrath of the voters," Mr. Hatch said.
Eleven senators facing re-election this year opposed the amendment and several
are facing potentially difficult races, including Lincoln Chafee of Rhode
Island, a Republican, and the Democrats Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii, Robert C.
Byrd of West Virginia, Maria Cantwell of Washington and Joseph I. Lieberman of
Connecticut.
The leader of the Citizens Flag Alliance, which had been running newspaper
advertisements on the issue in selected states, said it would continue to press
the issue and make sure voters know where their senators stand on the amendment.
"I think this is the right thing to do, and I am going to keep at it until we
run out of money or they tell me to stop," said Daniel S. Wheeler, an American
Legion official who leads the advocacy group.
Prior to the vote on the amendment itself, the Senate voted 64 to 36 against a
proposed bill that would have criminalized flag desecration. Senator
Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second ranking Senate Democrat, said his plan
had been written to avoid Supreme Court objections, but backers of the
constitutional approach dismissed that idea.
President Bush, whose father was president when the flag fight initially erupted
in the aftermath of two high court rulings, said he was disappointed in the
outcome. "I commend the senators from both parties who voted to allow the
amendment ratification process to protect our flag to go forward, and continue
to believe that the American people deserve the opportunity to express their
views on this important issue."
The House has routinely approved the flag amendment on bipartisan votes and did
so last year. Had the Senate passed the amendment, it would have been
likely to win ratification from the required 38 states since, supporters say,
all states have endorsed the amendment in some form.
While the amendment gained three votes since it was last considered in 2000, its
future prospects are uncertain. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of
Kentucky, is in line to become the Republican leader in the next Congress, and
he opposes the initiative on free speech grounds. In addition, most
analysts expect Republicans to lose Senate seats in the November election.
"This would have been the easiest time to get it through," said Senator Charles
E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who opposed it.
The vote, which came after the Senate earlier this month defeated a proposed
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, will not be the last
ideologically charged vote in the run-up to the midterm elections. The
House Republican leadership announced Tuesday that it plans votes this summer on
social issues, including a same-sex marriage amendment, abortion rights,
Internet gambling, property rights and the Pledge of Allegiance.
"The American Values Agenda will defend America's founding principles," Speaker
J. Dennis Hastert said. "Through this agenda, we will work to protect the
faith of our people, the sanctity of life and freedoms outlined by our founding
fathers."
And the House on Tuesday approved on a voice vote a proposal that would prohibit
condominium associations and other homeowner groups from preventing residents
from displaying the flag.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been deeply involved in opposing
the amendment for years, credited the senators who took a potentially
politically tough vote to block it.
"The Senate came close to torching our Constitution, but luckily it came through
unscathed," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the organization's Washington
legislative office. "We applaud those brave senators who stood up for the
First Amendment and rejected this damaging and needless amendment."
Besides senators up for re-election, the issue also divided lawmakers considered
possible presidential candidates in 2008. Those voting yes included Mr.
Frist, George Allen of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, Sam Brownback of Kansas
and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, all Republicans, and Evan Bayh of Indiana, a
Democrat. Voting no on the Democratic side were Christopher J. Dodd of
Connecticut, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of
Delaware, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and John Kerry of Massachusetts.
|
