The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 21, 1997, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. PAUL] is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
1997 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress will soon vote on a flag burning amendment to the Constitution. This issue arouses great emotions, even without any evidence flag burning is a problem. When was the last time we heard of a significant incident involving flag burning? It is a nonissue, but Congress has managed to make it one while avoiding the serious matters of life, liberty, and property.
1997 Ron Paul 59:2
As Congress makes plans to attack the flag enemies, it stubbornly refuses to consider seriously the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, property rights, political propaganda from a government-run educational system, taxpayers’ paid-for NEA sacrilege, licensing of all broadcast networks, or taxpayers’ financing of monopolistic political parties, let alone the budget, the debt, the deficit, honest money, policing the world and the entire welfare state.
1997 Ron Paul 59:3
Will the country actually be improved with this amendment? Will true patriotism thus thrive as the malcontents are legislated into submission? Do we improve the character of angry people because we threaten them with a prison cell better occupied by a rapist?
1997 Ron Paul 59:4
This whole process fails to address the anger that prompts such misguided behavior as flag burning. We have a government growing by leaps and bounds, our citizens are fearful of the future and we respond by creating the underwear police. Surely flag underwear will be deemed a desecration.
1997 Ron Paul 59:5
Why is dealing with a symptom of anger and frustration by suppressing free expression a moral good?
1997 Ron Paul 59:6
The best I can tell is legislative proposals like this come from Congress’ basic assumption that it can legislate economic equality and mold personal behavior. The reasoning goes; if Congress thinks it can achieve these goals, why not legislate respect and patriotism, even if it does undermine freedom of expression and property ownership.
1997 Ron Paul 59:7
Desecration is defined as: “To divest of a sacred character or office, commit sacrilege or blasphemy or to deconsecrate.” If consecrate is “to make sacred; such as a church or bread or wine”, how can we deconsecrate
June 10, 1997
something not first consecrated? Who then consecrated the flag? When was it done?
1997 Ron Paul 59:8
“Sacred” beliefs are those reserved for a religious or Godly nature, “To set apart for the worship of a deity. To make holy.” Does this amendment mean we now concede the flag is a religious symbol? Will this amendment, if passed, essentially deify the State?
1997 Ron Paul 59:9
There are some, I am sure, who would like to equate the State with God. The State’s assumption of parental rights is already a deep concern to many Americans. Will this encourage more people to accept the State as our God? We imply by this amendment that the State is elevated to a religion, a dangerous notion and one the founders feared. Calling flag burning blasphemous is something we should do with great caution.
1997 Ron Paul 59:10
Will it not be ironic if the flag is made sacred and we write laws against its desecration at the same time we continue to steal taxpayers’ money to fund the National Endowment for the Arts, which truly desecrates Christ and all of Christianity in the name of free speech?
1997 Ron Paul 59:11
The flag, indeed, is a loved patriotic symbol of American pride and freedom. Many of us, I for 5 years, served our country in the military fighting for the principles of liberty, but not for the physical cloth of which the flag is woven.
1997 Ron Paul 59:12
There is confusion between the popular symbol and the real stuff, and in the process of protecting our symbols we are about to undermine the real stuff: liberty. The whole notion of legislating against desecration is vague and undefinable. Burning can be easily identified, but should it not matter who paid for the flag? And are there no owners of the particular flag involved? Are all flags to be communal property?
1997 Ron Paul 59:13
If we pretend flags are universally owned, that means we can use them randomly. If there is no individual ownership, how can one buy or sell a flag? Should it not be a concern as to where the flag is burned and on whose property? With this legislation, the flag will lose its identity as property and become a holy government symbol not to be desecrated. These are difficult questions but they must be answered.
1997 Ron Paul 59:14
Whatever happened to the notion that freedom to express unpopular, even obnoxious views, including Marxist views, was the purpose of guaranteeing freedom of expression? Of what value is protection of only popular and majority-approved opinions? That is a mockery of liberty. Soviet citizens had that much freedom. Remember, dissidents who burned the Soviet flag were shot.
1997 Ron Paul 59:15
A national flag police can only exist in a totalitarian state. We should have none of it. Why not police the burning of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation? These acts, expressing a radical fringe view, would be as equally repugnant.
The Congress will soon vote on a flag burning amendment to the Constitution. This issue arouses great emotions even without any evidence flag burning is a problem. When was the last time we heard of a significant incident involving flag burning? It’s a nonissue but Congress has managed to make it one while avoiding the serious matters of life, liberty, and property.
1997 Ron Paul 59:17
There just is no flag desecration crisis. Where are the demonstrators, where are the letters? Will this only lead to more discredit on Congress? Only 6 percent of the American people trust anything they hear from the Federal Government so why should they believe there is a flag crisis requiring an adjustment to the Bill of Rights for the first time in our history. Since most of what Congress does, leads to unintended consequences, why do we feel compelled to solve imaginary problems?
1997 Ron Paul 59:18
The American people are way ahead of the U.S. Congress and their distrust is a healthy sign the Republic will survive in spite of all our good deeds and noble gestures. And that’s good.
1997 Ron Paul 59:19
What sense of insecurity requires such a public display to reassure ourselves we are patriots of the highest caliber, confident enough to take on the flag burning movement—a movement yet to raise its ugly head. Our political saviors will have us believe that our loyalty to America hinges on this lone amendment to the Constitution.
1997 Ron Paul 59:20
As Congress makes plans to attack the flag enemies, it stubbornly refuses to consider seriously: the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, property rights, political propaganda from a government run educational system, taxpayer’s paid-for NEA sacrilege, licensing of all broadcast networks, or taxpayer’s financing of monopolistic political parties, let alone the budget, the debt, the deficit, honest money, policing the world, and the entire welfare state.
1997 Ron Paul 59:21
Pervasive bureaucratic government is all around us and now we’re spending time on developing the next addition to the Federal police force—the flag police. Diverting attention away from real problems toward a pseudoproblem is not a new technique of politicians.
Political grandstanding is probably the greatest motivation behind this movement to change the Constitution. It’s thought to be easy to embarrass those who, on principle, believe and interpret the first amendment differently. Those who vote eagerly for this amendment do it with good intentions as they laugh at the difficult position in which opponents find themselves.
1997 Ron Paul 59:23
Will the country actually be improved with this amendment? Will true patriotism thus thrive as the malcontents are legislated into submission? Do we improve the character of angry people because we threaten them with a prison cell, better occupied by a rapist?
1997 Ron Paul 59:24
This whole process fails to address the anger that prompts such misguided behavior as flag burning. We have a government growing by leaps and bounds, our citizens are fearful of the future, and we respond by creating the underwear police—surely, flag underwear will be deemed a desecration.
1997 Ron Paul 59:25
Why is dealing with a symptom of anger and frustration by suppressing free expression a moral good?
1997 Ron Paul 59:26
The best I can tell is legislative proposals like this come from Congress’ basic assumption that it can legislate economic equality and mold personal behavior. The reasoning goes; if Congress thinks it can achieve these goals, why not legislate respect and patriotism even if it does undermine freedom of expression and property ownership?
Desecration is defined as: “To divest of a sacred character or office, commit sacrilege or blasphemy or de-(con)secrate.” If consecrate is “to make sacred; such as a church or bread and wine,” how can we “de-consecrate” something not first “consecrated?” Who then consecrated the flag? When was it done? “Sacred beliefs are those reserved for a religious or Godly nature, i.e., to set apart for the worship of a deity. To make holy.” Does this amendment mean we now concede the flag is a religious symbol? Will this amendment if passed essentially deify the state?
1997 Ron Paul 59:28
There are some, I’m sure, who would like to equate the state with God. The state’s assumption of parental rights is already a deep concern to many Americans. Will this encourage more people to accept the state as our God? We imply by this amendment that the state is elevated to a religion—a dangerous notion and one the Founders feared. Calling flag burning blasphemous is something we should do with great caution.
1997 Ron Paul 59:29
Won’t it be ironic if the flag is made sacred—consecrated—and we write laws against its desecration at the same time we continue to steal taxpayer’s money to fund the National Endowment for the Arts which truly desecrates Christ and all of Christianity in the name of free speech? I must repeat this question: Won’t it be ironic if the flag is made sacred and we write laws against its desecration at the same time we continue to steal taxpayer’s money to fund the National Endowment for the Arts which desecrates Christ and all of Christianity in the name of free speech?
1997 Ron Paul 59:30
The flag indeed is a loved patriotic symbol of American pride and freedom. Many of us, I for 5 years, have served our country in the military fighting for the principles of liberty, but not for the physical cloth of which the flag is woven.
1997 Ron Paul 59:31
There is confusion between the popular symbol and the real stuff, and in the process of protecting our symbols we are about to undermine the real stuff—liberty. The whole notion of legislating against desecration is vague and undefinable. Burning can be easily identified but shouldn’t it matter who paid for the flag? Are there no owners of the particular flag involved? Are all flags to be communal property? If we pretend flags are universally owned, that means we can use them randomly. If there is no individual ownership how can one sell or buy a flag? Should it not be a concern as to where the flag is burned and on whose property? With this legislation the flag will lose its identity as property and become a holy government symbol not to be desecrated? These are difficult questions but they must be answered.
1997 Ron Paul 59:32
Will using a flag as underwear or as a beach towel or a handkerchief or flying it upside down become a Federal crime?
1997 Ron Paul 59:33
The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars burn flags to dispose of them. This respectful ritual is distinguished from a hoodlum doing it only by the intent. Are we wise enough to define and legislate intent under all circumstances? Intent obviously implies an expression of a view. So Congress
now feels compelled to police intentions, especially if seen as unpopular.
1997 Ron Paul 59:34
Whatever happened to the notion that freedom to express unpopular, even obnoxious views, including Marxist ideas was the purpose of guaranteeing freedom of expression. Of what value is protection of only popular and majority-approved opinions? that’s a mockery of liberty. Soviet citizens had that much freedom. Remember, dissidents who burned the Soviet flag were shot. A national flag police can only exist in a totalitarian state. We should have none of it.
1997 Ron Paul 59:35
Why not police the burning of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation? These acts, expressing a radical fringe view, would be as equally repugnant, and a case could be made they might be even more threatening because their attack would be precise and aimed at the heart of American liberty. The answer is the political mileage is with the flag and tough luck to those who have principled opposition.
1997 Ron Paul 59:36
But no one should ever squirm or weasel out of the right vote, even if threatened with possible negative political fallout.
Note:
1997 Ron Paul Chapter 59
The audio failed in the C-Span clip corresponding to this chapter.
