“We’re gonna fight until hell freezes over and then we’re gonna fight on ice.”
 Dan Wheeler of the Citizens Flag Alliance.
This man speaks passionately about one side of an issue that has our country split in two.  No, this is not Civil War II, but some people are ready “to fight.”  The issue at hand is whether our national flag should be legally protected by an amendment to the Constitution, or if burning the flag should be kept as a right given to us through the first amendment; Freedom of Speech.  The United States Constitution should not amend to prohibit burning of the American Flag for three reasons.  First, this amendment is not practical.  It has and will waste our time and money over an issue with little justification for doing so.  Second, it is not viable.  In order for us to uphold our Constitution, and the first amendment in particular, there is no viable way of passing an amendment of this sort.  Finally, the flag amendment is not reasonable.  The questions revolving around the issue and the basis of some of the sentimental arguments are lacking a strong foundation.

 “The constitutional amendment, as proposed, would read simply, ‘Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.’”  Three times the House of representatives has passed this bill onto the Congress for final approval, and twice (and awaiting a possible third time) Congress has denied the bill by two-thirds majority (Mauro, 1999).  Also, three times the Supreme Court has struck down cases against individuals charged with the “crime” of flag burning.  There seems to be a pattern here of lack of support and it is not just a coincidence.  An amendment to our constitution to prohibit flag burning is not practical.  The amendment process should rarely be uses and should be restricted to those issues that mend major flaws in our constitution.  Issues such as civil rights, women’s’ right to vote, and minority issues are these exceptions.  The amendment process has been misused in our history numerous times, one example being prohibition.  This amendment prohibited distilled spirits, an act that took the use of another amendment to correct (Wall, 1995).  Before we take our time and money to amend our Constitution, let us be sure that we are not making another mistake.  Even Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, an advocate of this amendment has suggested that the flag burning issue has wasted much time and energy.  Only three flag burning incidences have been reported since 1993 (Leo, 1995).  This amendment is not going to solve any “burning” national issues and it is not going to create a nation of patriots.

 The respect of our flag and the patriotism for our country should already be inside each of us as American citizens.  The burning of a flag, or the hindrance thereof, does not create or destroy this patriotism.  Have our insecurities as a strong and powerful nation led to us reaching and grappling for a thread of unity?  This amendment is not the answer to our nations problems.  It is however, an impractical solution, which is certainly not viable either.

 The practicality of the anti-flag burning amendment is one issue.  However, the viability of this proposed amendment is much more imperative to the preservation of our basic freedoms.  The amendment trying to protect the flag is actually endangering the freedoms for which it stands and defies the separation of church and state.  Our first amendment protects our right to freedom of speech.  Every act of communication, including flag burning is a form of speech (and conduct).  Therefore, we are given the right to burn a flag in protest or demonstration (Kinsley, 1990).  Also, if flag burning is a special category of speech that can be deemed illegal, then where do we draw the lines of what speech and ideas we do and do not permit (Mauro, 1999)?  This question encroaches upon our basic constitutional freedoms of speech and expression.  This is a juxtaposition of patriotism and freedoms.  The group trying to save a national symbol of patriotic pride are the same people taking away the freedoms that feed that pride.  The amendment to ban flags being burnt is based on the premise that the flag is a revered symbol and therefore should not be desecrated.  Why then is our flag being protected from people trying to exercise a fairly ethical form of free expression when the Klu Klux Klan has has been given the governmental right to burn crosses of their own.  Should I not be able to burn a flag of my own?

 These lines become even hazier and less viable when you consider how this amendment mixes church and state.  The term used in the amendment has been “flag desecration.”  Desecrate is another term which means to attack which is sacred.  This term sacred should not be used in conjunction to a secular state.  Flag desecration takes a secular object and gives it a religious (and even worshipped) connotation (Wall, 1995).  Based on the premise of this amendment, it would violate or basic constitutional rights and laws.

 The anti-burning amendment does not only violate our constitution, but it is highly unreasonable.  Where are the lines drawn for what a “flag” is, and how can it be protected (Haines, 2000)?  The lines of what is illegal to burn and what is not have been blurred.  One example is from an article by Ehrenreich (1995) presenting a pair of Tommy Hilfiger shorts designed with an American flag print.  Would these be illegal to burn?  The question that arises here is what size, shape, and fabric constitutes a flag?  Also, is a flag on the Internet that is digitally burned grounds for arrest?  Already in the US, in at least four instances, individuals have been prosecuted under “state desecration laws” even though such prosecutions were deemed illegal based on the overturning of the 1989 federal flag desecration law (Goldstein, 1994).”  Each of these and most instances of flag desecration are different. One example involved the ban of a mural in a public school, and one arrest made for flags being thrown into a creek.  The definition of desecration and the type of flag are not only too vague to be prosecuted but illegal based on our constitution and standing national laws.  Far too many questions have been left unanswered to reasonably create a constitutional amendment.

 Another question that is also still too hazy is; how can the flag be reasonably protected?  “The Washington National Monument, the flag is not a single object existing in one place that can be protected from defacement.  It is a schematic color pattern universally reproduced (Anderson, 1995).”  Our numerous reproductions of our national symbol across our country could not possibly be policed.  This amendment would be a futile attempt to stomp out flag burning across our Nation.

 The United States Constitution should not amend to prohibit the burning of the American flag.  This amendment is impractical, leaving little argument to prove why the time and money should be spent on its passing.  Second, it is not viable.  The passing of this particular amendment would lead to many other issues regarding constitutional breachment.  And finally, this amendment is unreasonable because of its lack of clarity and boundaries.  In the end, being that this amendment is neither practical, viable, nor reasonable, hopefully our government will drop this proposed amendment before hell freezes over.
 
References
Mauro, Tony (Sept, 1999). Flag Burning.  The Quill, v87 i6 p42.
Ehrenreich, B. (July, 1995).  My Flag, Your Shorts.  Time, v146 n1 p62 (1).
Anderson, M. & Raskin, J. (Sept, 1995). Old Blory.  The Nation v261 n8 p260 (2).
Kinsley, M. (July, 1990).  Stars and Snipes.  The New Republic v203 n2-3 p4(1).
Goldstein, R. (July, 1994).  This flag is not for buning:  Snuffing Out Symbolic Speech.  The Nation v259 n3 p84 (3).
Wall, J. (July, 1995).  Flag Burning Revisited.  The Christian Century v112 p699 (1).
Leo, J. (July, 1995).  Oh Say Can You See…The Point.  U.S. News and World Report v119 n2 p17(1).
Haines, M. (Nov, 2000).  The Patriotic Flag Burner.  New Jersey Law Journal v162 i6 p31.