"Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem"

The Congressional Watch Bill Index
107th Congress of the United States of America
Congressional Bills that Threaten the US Constitution
And the Republican Form of Government of the United States of America
February 1, 2001

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 79
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal penalties for that act.

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 11
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States.

Constitutional Violations

This Bill attacking Freedom of Speech is a direct violation of many parts of the United States Constitution. The Bills represent a total failure of their author(s), and sponsor(s), and co-sponsor(s), and supporter(s), in Congress, to properly preserve, protect, defend, and therefore support, the US Constitution. These Bills, therefore, represent and impart a clear and undisputable truth; and that is the fact that these members of Congress, who have authored, sponsored, co-sponsored, or who have otherwise supported and aided these 'hostile' Congressional Bills, have openly and flagrantly violated their sworn Oath or Affirmation to support the United States Constitution. US Constitution; ARTICLE VI, third paragraph.

This Bill violates the lawful sanctity of the United States Constitution, by directly and openly challenging the lawful authority and supremacy of the US Constitution. This Bill also attempts to further establish the rule of law under God and the Bible, by establishing the 'Holy' and religious sanctity of the American flag. US Constitution; ARTICLE VI, second paragraph.

The United States Constitution specifically prohibits Congress, and members of Congress, from making or creating any type of Law which will harm or change the now existing provisions of the First Amendment. This Bill violates the 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' constitutional provision, that "Congress shall make no law...." US Constitution; First Amendment, opening clause. [See Congress shall make no law]

The United States Constitution specifically prohibits Congress, and members of Congress, from making or creating any type of Law which will respect an establishment of religion. These Bills violate that 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' constitutional provision placed on Congress, and members of Congress. US Constitution, First Amendment.

What the Rule of Law Says

Here is what American Jurisprudence has to say about the supremacy of the United States Constitution, and these excerpts are supported by an overwhelming amount of case law to firmly back these legal opinions. Cases are so numerous in support of the Constitution, that there is not enough room here to cite them all. The number of cases in support of the Constitution is overwhelming.

Any attempt to do that which is prescribed in the Constitution in any manner other than that prescribed, or to do that which is prohibited is repugnant to that supreme and paramount law and is invalid. (16 AmJur 2nd, 82)

No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guaranties of the Federal Constitution.
(16 AmJur 2nd,70)

No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution. (16 AmJur 2nd, 71)

Neither emergency nor economic necessity justifies a disregard of cardinal constitutional guaranties.
(16 AmJur 2nd, 81)

42 USC Sec. 1983 [Return to Discussion]
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, Any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. This United States Code has been upheld by the Supreme Court: "The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of government authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Owen vs City of Independence, 100 S.Ct. 1398 (1980)

S. REPT. 105-298

From S. REPT. 105-298: C. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 40 WOULD DIMINISH THE RIGHTS WE CURRENTLY ENJOY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT:
Senate Joint Resolution 40 unquestionably would restrict rights currently enjoyed by Americans under the First Amendment. Indeed, that is its sole purpose.

From S. REPT. 105-298: H. J. RES. 54 IS WRONG AS A MATTER OF PRECEDENT:
[Footnote] If we begin to second guess the courts' authority concerning matters of free speech, we will not only be carving an awkward exception into a document designed to last for the ages, but will be undermining the very structure created under the Constitution to protect our rights. This is why Madison warned against using the amendment process to correct every perceived constitutional defect, particularly concerning issues which inflame public passion.

[Footnote] Conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein emphasized this concern when he testified before the Subcommittee at 1995 House Judiciary hearings:

[Footnote 29: Inserting the term 'desecration' into the Constitution would in and of itself seem highly inappropriate. Webster's New World Dictionary defines 'desecrate' as 'to violate the sacredness of,' and in turn defines 'sacred' as 'consecrated to a god or God; holy; or having to do with religion.' The introduction of these terms could create a significant tension within our constitutional structure, in particular with the religion clause of the first amendment.]

From S. REPT. 105-298: D. THERE IS NO HISTORY OF Supreme Court ACCEPTANCE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR PEACEFUL PROTESTS INVOLVING FLAG BURNING:
The Majority Report mentions Endecott's Case, a 1634 action of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in which 'a domestic defacer of the flag' was prosecuted. In that case, John Endecott cut the cross of St. George from an English flag in apparent protest against the tyranny of Charles I and Bishop Laud. At the time, the Bay Colony offered no First Amendment rights.

Freedom of speech was denied, as were freedom of assembly and freedom from the establishment of religion. Indeed, there were no written or even customary laws at this date: punishment was imposed by then-governor Winthrop and his allies in accordion with their view of morality and Scripture ('Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.')

[Footnote] The use of such a prosecution under such circumstances as evidence of 'the 'historic core of consistency between flag protection and the First Amendment' as claimed by the Majority Report at 9, indicates a conception of the First Amendment that can only be described as bizarre. It should be inconceivable that the actions of the British colonial government repressing American patriots should be the model and precedent for what the Senate should do now. Yet that, amazingly, is the logic of the proposed amendment…

Endecott's Case is, of course, properly seen as an example of the tyranny against which the Founders rightly rebelled, and Endecott's 'desecration' as a very early step on the long movement toward independence from England. The case also is an early analog to a similar 'desecration' of the English flag by George Washington to create the first flag of the Continental Army: On taking command of the army on July 3, 1775, Washington took an English flag and, after removing both the cross of St. George and the cross of St. Andrew, sewed six white stripes onto the remaining red field. By this 'desecration,' George Washington created the 13 red and white stripes that remain to this day… We frankly are astonished that the Majority Report would cast aspersions on, in Patrick Henry's phrase, 'such gauntlets cast in the face of tyranny.'

Again, there simply is no instance in the entire history of the United States in which the Supreme Court has upheld against a First Amendment challenge a conviction for flag tampering. On the contrary, the roots of the 'Johnson' and 'Eichman' decisions lie deep in American jurisprudence.

'A regulation of speech that is motivated by nothing more than a desire to curtail expression of a particular point of view,' wrote the Supreme Court, 'is the purest example' of a law abridging the freedom of speech. Consolidated Edison C. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 546 (1980)

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS INDIVISIBLE: For Congress to limit expression because of its offensive content is to strike at the heart of the first amendment. As American Bar Association president Jerome Shestack advised the Committee,

Since its founding, this Nation has thrived on the vigor of free speech and robust dissent not only through the spoken or written word, but through peaceful acts of political protest. The Boston Tea Party, civil rights sit-ins, public demonstrations, and in this instance, flag burning are all examples, some laudable, some not, which have served to test the true meaning of freedom of speech and expression and to affirm that this hallowed principle is protected, not prosecuted. The spirit of the first Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech is captured in Justice Jackson's words in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, a flag salute case:

[F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The text of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

To restrict speech and political expression to only those areas that Congress approves is to limit, as China now does, the freedom of worship to only those churches of which that government approves. That is not freedom at all. As Charles Fried, Solicitor General under President Reagan, testified in 1990:

Principles are not things you can safely violate 'just this once.' Can we not just this once do an injustice, just this once betray the spirit of liberty, just this once break faith with the traditions of free expression that have been the glory of this Nation? Not safely; not without endangering our immortal soul as a nation. The man who says you can make an exception to a principle, does not know what a principle is; just as the man who says that only this once lets make 2+2=5 does not know what it is to count.

Measures to Protect the American Flag, Hearing before the Senate Comm. On the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (June 21, 1990) (statement of Charles Fried at 113).

The Washington Post observed in a July 5, 1998 editorial,

It would, in effect, turn the 'no' in the hallowed phrase 'Congress shall make no law' into an 'almost no'--which is a singular erosion of the principle for which the first Amendment stands. This principle has survived and enriched this country through periods in which unfettered expression caused great political stresses. Why should it be compromised now to prevent Americans from burning flags that they weren't planning to ignite in the first place?

Thomas Jefferson on the US Constitution & The First Amendment

"One of the amendments to the Constitution… expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others."
Thomas Jefferson, 1798

The United States is NOT a Christian Nation

Contrary to the lies being spread by the radical religious right, the United States of America is NOT, or has it ever been, a Christian Nation. "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." The Treaty of Tripoli; Signed by George Washington November 4, 1796; Ratified by the United States Senate June 7, 1797; Signed into Law by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. This makes the Treaty of Tripoli and the above statement, a declared part of the supreme Law of the United States of America, and reinforces the 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' religious provisions of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. A final note on the Treaty of Tripoli; during the entire review and Senate ratification process, from the very first draft through it's final publication in the Gazette, not one concern was voiced over the very clear, and explicit terminology of the treaty, terminology and intent which was laid out by the United States Founding Fathers.

The Constitutional 'Wall of Separation'

For the full discussion on the 'absolute' constitutional Wall of Separation which is to exist between Church and State, see: III. JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION The information at the 'Wall of Separation' page, is important to the material being presented here.

Congress Not at Liberty to Tamper With the US Constitution

Congress does not have a free reign over what it can legislate and make into law. The powers of Congress are limited by the United States Constitution. See the section on the powers of Congress at NO "ad libitum" POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS, and the section on the United States Bill of Rights for more information on the constitutional restraints placed on Congress.

A Question of Loyalty, Law, Oath, & Accountability

There is no constitutional provision allowing for censure in the case of treasonable acts committed by any member of Congress against the Constitution, and therefore against the peoples republican form of government. There is no excuse, not even if it is religious error, for repeatedly ignoring and sidestepping the 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' provisions of the the supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution. In the words of Thomas Szasz an American psychiatrist, "If he who breaks the law is not punished, he who obeys it is cheated. This, and this alone, is why lawbreakers ought to be punished: to authenticate as good, and to encourage as useful, law-abiding behavior. The arm of criminal law cannot be correction or deterrence; it can only be the maintenance of the legal order."

What ever happened to the part of the constitutional rule of law, which puts into place the lawful and public accountability of those members of Congress, who purposely manipulate or misconstruct the United States Constitution, and in so doing violate their constitutional Oath or Affirmation to support, and therefore, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution ? Just merely voting a religiously or otherwise misguided member out of Congress, for their hostile transgressions against the US Constitution, has no longer become enough of a deferent. Radical right and other members of Congress, who continue to tamper with the US Constitution and the Republican Form of Government in a hostile manner, need to be held accountable for these hostile actions, and they need to be held accountable as if they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

What's Wrong in America

What's wrong in America? It is Federalism, and the extremist radical right belief that the supreme Law of the United States, is whatever the right desires it to be, so long as it fits the radical right agenda, and therefore, is a justification to interpret the Constitution [law] under that radical right agenda. It is the old monkey see monkey do show! The government and those in it act unlawfully towards the Law and the Constitution, and get away with it on a continual basis, and the masses of people see this on a daily basis, so in response to what they [the people]see, the masses of people act in the same manner - figuring that since they see those in government and power, getting away with raping the Law and the Constitution, that they too, meaning the masses of people, are also allowed this same privilege.

Until this attitude and problem is addressed and corrected, within our government, and elsewhere outside of government, then the United States will continue on the same course of destruction which it has been on for the last several decades.

The decision to make these changes, and the great benefits which these positive changes will bring to the United States, is not only a responsibility of our Congress, it is also the responsibility of the masses of American people.

Stop the Destruction

Stop the destruction of the US Constitution and the republic, by radical right members of Congress.

Contact your United States Senator and United States Representative today, and let them know your extreme displeasure with 'hostile' acts aimed at weakening the United States Constitution. Let the members of Congress know your feelings towards those that are creating these 'hostile' Congressional Bills, which are aimed at changing the intent and meaning of the First Amendment, and other parts of the United States Constitution. When you contact members of Congress, even if you have little to no respect for them, be forward with your attitude and wording, but do not be overly abrasive, or vulgar. Be careful how you word your questions and your statements - if it takes you an hour or two to construct the wording, in order to convey the message you are wanting to get across to the other side, and everything comes together and works out, then the time has been well spent. What you are looking for, is answers and action from your Congressperson. You are not looking to turn them off, although I have to admit, the minds of many of our members of Congress, are already dead and turned off.

If your elected voice to government is one of those who is guilty of 'hostile' acts towards the Constitution, let your member(s) of Congress know [I prefer to do it by mail, as it leaves a legal footprint behind] how dissatisfied you are with them. Get actively involved with others who feel like you do, and ban together to have this member of Congress removed from office. Join together with others in your area who feel the same about this Congressperson, and pursue them for a violation of your constitutional rights under 42 USC Sec. 1983. Organize a protest in front of the Congress members office, and have a protest each and every time the Congressperson is going to be in town. Expand this protest to include functions the Congressperson attends. If you have a source of financial funding for these activities, then have small and large signs printed up, as well as bumper stickers for cars, and get busy getting them put up. Find and develop financial resources for having billboards put up, and doing media ads which expose the truth about your corrupted Congressperson. Contact other members of Congress, and let those congressional members know your displeasure with this Congressperson.

Ask members of Congress specific questions, like: Where do certain members of Congress, get their authority to violate the specific 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' clause's of the First Amendment, and other 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' provisions of the US Constitution? Let members of Congress know that the authority can't be coming from Article I, section 8, of the US Constitution, because Congress has no such delegated powers under that Article of the Constitution [1]. And Congress does not have the authority under Article V, because the opening clause of the First Amendment supersedes the authority of Article V in matters relating to the First Amendment, by prohibiting Congress from making any laws [including constitutional Amendments], which will in any manner, alter the rights and privileges enumerated within the First Amendment.

Be sure to ask your Congressperson, why he or she is not doing anything to prevent these 'hostile' abuses and misconstructions to the US Constitution, because it is their duty to be preserving the rights within the Constitution, and preventing and stopping such abuses, once they become aware of them; it is called protecting and defending the Constitution, a duty which every member of Congress has sworn to do first, and above all else. This is the first and foremost duty of each and every member of Congress, without exception! Congress works for 'We the People,' it is not the other way around.

Be sure to demand specific answers to your questions, it is your constitutional right under the First Amendment, and it is your Congressperson's constitutional duty to answer you.

If your Congressperson is unresponsive to your questions, and your requests for specific answers, or they sidestep and evade the issue(s) - don't be surprised! Just go to plan B [Remember, always have another plan at hand and ready to use, because you can most always anticipate, and count on the other side having a plan; good planning is what keeps the other side in power; it is simply good strategy and tactics.]. Plan B; Send your unresponsive member of Congress a Certified Letter, restating your questions and issues, and that you want specific answers to those questions and issues. In the second letter, include an explanation of the sworn Oath or Affirmation members of Congress have taken, which is to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution, and that this is the first and foremost duty of all members of Congress. Also, ask for an appointment, so that you can talk over the issue with the member of Congress. So, that you can better collaborate and document your visit with the member of Congress, take someone else along with you. If you can get a member of the media to go with you, even better. If the Congressperson is still unresponsive, then initiate a protest against them, because that Congressperson is as much a part of the problem, as the member of Congress you are seeking constitutional action against.

Changing things for the better in our political and governmental machinery, means that the masses of people in the United States, must become more involved in the political and governmental process. This has been the key to the success of the right; getting voting blocks of individuals involved in the voting process, and then taking over the machinery which runs politics and government. This same process, is also the key to 'We the People' taking back our government, and restoring it to the constitutional republic which the United States is supposed to be.

It is every loyal American's obligation and duty, to protest the abuse and misconstructions of the US Constitution by radical right members of Congress. It makes no difference who these members of Congress are, or what esteem position they hold, or what religious error made them disobey the US Constitution. Members of Congress who have willfully disobeyed their duty to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution, have to be held accountable for their hostile actions to the Constitution. The time for holding them accountable - is now!

Related material about Freedom of Speech and Flag Desecration, can be found at The F.A.C.T.S. Directory

Email:

United States and other International Copyright Laws apply to this, and all the other pages at F.A.C.T.S.
Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 F.A.C.T.S. & Sherwood C. Ensey