Here's a well written and thoughtful editorial on the defeat of the flag burning amendment.
As a feel-good political issue, flag-burning is hard to beat, but constitutionally outlawing it would chisel away at the greatest of the amendments to that document, the First.
Said the Senate's No. 2 Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky: "I think the First Amendment has served us well for over 200 years. I don't think it needs to be altered."
[ . . . ]
The flag amendment was aimed at banning flag-burning and other forms of disrespect in protests against government policy.
As such, it is clearly political speech and, as the Supreme Court has ruled, protected under the First Amendment.
As a practical matter, flag- burning is so rare as to be close to nonexistent and hardly rises to the level of a national problem. The flag is a lot stronger than its would-be defenders give it credit for; in its symbolism of our national ideals, the flag defends the right to revile it.
After 217 years, we do not need a 28th amendment diluting the First.
I do so agree. And kudos to Senator Mitch McConnell for sticking to his guns -- again. Protecting what the symbol stands for is the best way to protect the symbol.
