|
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 71
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
... Cached
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 22, 2005
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
2005 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The process may
well be legal, but it is unwise.
2005 Ron Paul 71:2
The problem is minimal. This is more like a solution in search of a problem. We
just do not need to amend the Constitution for such a tiny problem.
2005 Ron Paul 71:3
It was stated earlier that this is the only recourse we have since the Supreme
Court ruled the Texas law unconstitutional. That is not true. There are
other
alternatives.
2005 Ron Paul 71:4
One merely would be to use State law. There are a lot of State laws, such as
laws against arson, disturbing the peace, theft, inciting riots,
trespassing. We
could deal with all of the flag desecration with these laws. But there
is
another solution that our side has used and pretends to want to use on
numerous
occasions, and that is to eliminate the jurisdiction of the federal
courts. We
did it on the marriage issue; we can do it right here.
2005 Ron Paul 71:5
So to say this is the only solution is incorrect. It is incorrect. And
besides, a
solution like that would go quickly, pass the House by a majority vote,
pass the
Senate by a majority vote, and be send to the President. The Schiavo
legislation
was expedited and passed quickly. Why not do it with the flag? It is a
solution,
and we should pay attention to it.
2005 Ron Paul 71:6
Desecration is reserved for religious symbols. To me, why this is scary is
because the flag is a symbol today of the State. Why is it, our side
never seems
to answer this question when we bring it up, why is it that we have the
Red
Chinese, Cuba, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein who support the position
that you
severely punished those who burn a flag? No, they just gloss over this.
They
gloss over it. Is it not rather ironic today that we have troops dying
in Iraq,
“spreading freedom” and, yet, we are here trying to pass laws similar
to
what Saddam Hussein had with regard to the flag? I just do not see
where that
makes a lot of sense.
2005 Ron Paul 71:7
Mr. Speaker, a question I would like to ask the proponents of this legislation
is this: What if some military officials arrived at a home to report to
the
family that their son had just been killed in Iraq, and the mother is
totally
overwhelmed by grief which quickly turns to anger. She grabs a flag and
she
burns it? What is the proper punishment for this woman who is grieved,
who acts
out in this manner? We say, well, these are special circumstances, we
will
excuse her for that; or no, she has to be punished, she burned a flag
because
she was making a political statement. That is the question that has to
be
answered. What is the proper punishment for a woman like that? I would
say it is
very difficult to mete out any punishment whatsoever.
2005 Ron Paul 71:8
We do not need a new amendment to the Constitution to take care of a
problem that
does not exist.
2005 Ron Paul 71:9
Another point: The real problem that exists routinely on the House floor is the daily
trashing of
the Constitution by totally ignoring Act I Sec. 8. We should spend a
lot more
time following the rule of law, as defined by our oath of office, and a
lot less
on unnecessary constitutional amendments that expand the role of the
federal
government while undermining the States.
2005 Ron Paul 71:10
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize my views on this proposed amendment.
I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great
respect
for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the
flag. I
also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned state
laws
prohibiting flag burning. Under the constitutional principle of
federalism,
questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are
strictly
up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus,
if this
amendment simply restored the states’ authority to ban flag burning, I
would
enthusiastically support it.
2005 Ron Paul 71:11
However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit
flag
burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our
Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to
some
degree that freedom that we have had all these many years.
2005 Ron Paul 71:12
Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise
this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify
making an
exception to the First Amendment protections of political speech the
majority
finds offensive. According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens Flag
Alliance,
there were only three incidents of flag desecration in 2004 and there
have only
been two acts of desecration thus far in 2005, and the majority of
those cases
involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by
local
law enforcement!
2005 Ron Paul 71:13
Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, “Congress shall
make no
law.” That was the spirit of our nation at that time: “Congress shall
make
no laws.”
2005 Ron Paul 71:14
Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders
and has
written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct.
But I
would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to
control
private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun,
because if
you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you
do that?
You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau
of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways
patriotism with
a gun--if your actions do not fit the official definition of a
“patriot,” we
will send somebody to arrest you.
2005 Ron Paul 71:15
Congress has models of flag desecration laws. For example, Saddam Hussein made
desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal offense punishable by up to 10
years in
prison.
2005 Ron Paul 71:16
It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but in fact
there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides of
this
issue. I would like to quote a past national commander of the American
Legion,
Keith Kreul. He said:
2005 Ron Paul 71:17
” Our Nation was
not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs
and ideals
expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans
who have
protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden
calf.
Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it
represents,
our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A
patriot
cannot be created by legislation.”
2005 Ron Paul 71:18
Former Secretary of
State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time winner of the
Presidential Medal of Freedom Colin Powell also has expressed
opposition to
amending the Constitution in this manner: “I would not amend that great
shield
of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants. The flag will be flying
proudly
long after they have slunk away.”
2005 Ron Paul 71:19
Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not even reach the majority of cases of
flag
burning. When we see flag burning on television, it is usually not
American
citizens, but foreigners who have strong objections to what we do
overseas.
This is what I see on television and it is the conduct that most
angers
me.
2005 Ron Paul 71:20
One
of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of
Hong Kong
was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they have prosecuted
some
individuals for flag burning. Our State Department keeps records of how
often
the Red Chinese prosecute people for burning the Chinese flag, as it
considers
those prosecutions an example of how the Red Chinese violate human
rights. Those
violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should
not have
most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among
those Members
who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties,
yet are
critical of Red China for punishing those who burn the Chinese flag.
2005 Ron Paul 71:21
Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech
and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of
expression of our religion in other people’s churches; it is honored
and
respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The
property conveys
the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station.
Once
Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it
limits
freedom.
2005 Ron Paul 71:22
Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag
belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say
that, you
are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything.
So why do
American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag
if the
flag is communally owned? If your neighbor, or the federal government,
owns a
flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and
burn that
flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your
conduct
under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a
collective
ownership of the flag is erroneous.
2005 Ron Paul 71:23
Finally,
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word “desecration,”
which
is traditionally reserved for religious symbols, the authors of this
amendment
are placing the symbol of the state on the same plane as symbols of the
church.
The practical effect of this is to either lower religious symbols to
the level
of the secular state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy
icon.
Perhaps this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen
as
interchangeable with the church. In any case, those who believe we have
“no
king but Christ” should be troubled by this amendment.
2005 Ron Paul 71:24
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested
in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose
this
amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of
the
individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional
interference
by the Supreme Court.
| |
