From Deseret News archives:

Alliance pushes flag amendment

Group says Utahns favor measure, Bennett statute is wrong idea

Published: Thursday, Aug. 4, 2005 9:30 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
The Citizens Flag Alliance came to Utah Wednesday to convince the news media that Utahns favor a flag amendment — and to convince Sen. Bob Bennett that his alternative flag statute is the wrong way to go.

"We want his vote very badly," said Maj. General Patrick H. Brady, Citizens Flag Alliance board chairman. "He can decide this issue." The alliance hopes that Bennett will support the Flag Protection Amendment once he realizes that most Utahns favor both the amendment's immediate and long-range intent.

Utah is also on the alliance's radar because of "extraordinarily negative" editorials and letters to the editor in Utah newspapers against the amendment, Brady said.

That amendment allows Congress and the states to enact laws to protect the American flag. The amendment itself does not criminalize flag burning or change the Constitution, although both the media and public are under the misperception that it does, he said.

At a press conference at the Capitol, the alliance unveiled results of a statewide independent poll, conducted by Opinion Research in July. The poll shows that 65 percent of Utahns incorrectly believe that the amendment itself would protect the flag from desecration. It also shows that 7 percent have never heard of the amendment.

Story continues below
The poll, a random-digit-dial sample containing listed and unlisted numbers, also showed that 69 percent of Utahns strongly or somewhat favor a flag amendment; and that 68 percent believe that desecrating the U.S. flag is "not an appropriate expression of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment."

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in 1989 held that flag desecration is a form of speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Federal and state laws protecting the flag have since been ruled unconstitutional, including statutes such as the one introduced by Bennett, said Richard Parker, a law professor at Harvard University, or, as Brady called it when introducing Parker, "that bastion of liberalism."

Parker criticized Bennett's statute as too narrow and "an empty gesture" that would not apply to any of the incidents of physical desecration of the flag in the past decade. It will likely not pass the Senate, and even if it did it would be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as "an unconstitutional infirmity," he said.

That's why the amendment must be passed first, so that statutes protecting the flag can later be passed, he said. Bennett's statute serves as "a red herring" that blocks an amendment "supported by a majority of Americans and by Congress," Parker said.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

Image
Deseret Morning News graphic

previousnext

Latest comments

Davis has no offense? I guess having one of the best, if not the best RB in...

'Start knocking heads' on healthcare

As The A-TEAM would of put it, "I LOVE IT WHEN A PLAN COMES TOGETHER." The...

Dick, how is your golf game you haven't mentioned it in ages.

'Too expensive!' Thinking man, healthcare as it is now is too expensive....

Mitchell wants testimony excluded

I'm so sick of Mitchell's attorneys exploiting the legal system to keep...

Hope for single moms

Gee, what a shock, something to help the poor trodden down single mothers. I...

TCU showdown has big implications

It's football, and each team has their chances. i think both will play well....

Prep girls soccer MVPs named

Alta wasnt even a playoff team without Kealia Ohai!

Leave. Duh. No WMD's. No Osama Bin Laden. No reason to be there. Our...

I enjoyed seeing the old uniforms. Bring them back! Great day for Tampa Bay!

Advertisements
Advertisement