American Flag Desecration: Burning - Essay Example

American Flag Desecration: Burning The American flag, just like any other country's flag, is the symbol of the nation. As Gen. Colin Powell said his 1999 speech, "Americans revere their flag as a symbol of the nation" ("The Constitution," 2007). A certain symbol, like flags, symbolizes the historical accounts that the nation had been through. Citizens should respect this symbol if morality and civil obedience are to be considered, especially if one is under the domain of that national symbol. Respect, therefore, shouldn't just come along when an enforced law is provided; it should always be considered by a responsible citizen ("The Constitution," 2007). American Flag: Symbol of the Nation George Washington said "We take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing we are separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing Liberty" ("History of the Flag," 2007). Other nations often take the red as the blood of those who risked their life for the nation's freedom, and white as purity for the ideal freedom they fought for. The Congress in 1977 was credited for speaking of the flag's symbols as "the star is a symbol for heaven and a divine goal to which man has aspired from time immemorial; and the stripe is symbolic of the rays light emanating from the sun"("The United States Flag," 2006.) This is how much Americans value their symbols of nationalities. However, through freedom of speech and expression towards presidential governance, some use the flag to extend their disagreement; such as burning, ripping or any indecent display that could attract the administration's attention to listen to their stipulations (Foppian, 2007). The massive public burning of flag during the Vietnam conflict on 1968 alarmed the Congress that was forced to come up with the first federal flag protection of general applicability. However, due to the Supreme Court's refusal to review the statute, it took a couple of decades that only the lower courts were the ones that upheld its constitutionality (Luckley, 2003) According to John Luckley's (2003) study of Flag Protection, up until now, the Congress finds difficulty in fully enforcing the federal law of flag desecration. To fully constitute the statute is to suppress the freedom of speech, but it may appear also as if the constitution is tolerating the desecration of the American flag (Luckley 2003:4). The 108th Congress Report of the House of Representatives (Library of Congress, 2007) cites that flag desecration is protected under the First Amendment as expressive conduct. The only stated law from the same source is that "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The ineffectivity of this law is due to the conflict of freedom of speech which the Supreme Court favors more and is the inclined stance taken mainly by the State (Luckley, 2003). Federal Law of Flag Desecration about Burning The United States Flag Code outlines flag etiquette. The Federal law states that "when American flag has worn out due to regular use and no longer fit for display, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner" ("Cracking the Flag-Burning," 2005). The specified term allows the burning of the flag in order to discharge the worn-out flag in respectful conduct. Its implication is that any manner and intent of the flag burning act aside from the mentioned tolerable act is punishable. As accounted for by the Library of Congress, House Joint Resolution 4 gives Congress authority to legislate the federal law even though not precisely recognized by the State (Luckley, 2003). The United States Veterans of Affairs stated that "there is no penalty for failure to comply with the Flag Code, and that it is not widely enforced." This insinuates that to emphasize or enforce the flag code of conduct would conflict with the First Amendment's right of freedom of speech (Luckley, 2003; "Cracking the Flag-Burning," 2005). According to the Columnist William Safire (2005) of New York Times, the word Desecration "is a noun steeped in the violation of religious belief." The word is rooted in the Latin sacrare or secrare, source of ''sacred'' and ''sacrifice,'' dealing through the millenniums with worship of a deity (Safire, 2005). Applying it to the national symbol, "to desecrate" is to deface, damage, and even physically mistreat. The American flag embodies the American Nation ("The United States Flag," 2006). The American flag does not only represent one political party, but instead the whole US governance (Library of Congress, 2007). Therefore, to express objection toward certain standpoints of the administration through flag burning, which is a direct desecration of a national symbol, is not a justifiable reason, hence considered as a criminal act. However, the First Amendment nullifies the laws that comply with the act (Luckley, 2003). The following are cases illustrating about the nuances of the federal law of flag desecration. Texas vs Johnson 21 June 1989 The federal law of flag desecration was only given notice by the Supreme Court from the first time the flag federal protection was constituted in 1968 through the case of Texas versus Johnson in 1989 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1989). It was in 1984 when Gregory Johnson participated in a demonstration against the Republican National Convention that took place in Dallas. The demonstrators provoked the passive streets with noise and exasperating act of protesting (U.S. Supreme Court, 1989). Johnson did not engage in contravening acts, but what he did was to douse the American flag that was handed to him in kerosene, and set it on fire. This act is the peak of the demonstration, and along with the burning of the flag was the chant of the protesters: "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you." Many of the witnesses of the demonstration, especially the flag burning, claimed that they had been seriously offended (Texas v. Johnson, 1989). Gregory Lee Johnson was charged with criminal offense of desecration of a venerated object in violation of Texas Penal Code Ann, 42.09(a) (3) (1989). He was fined $2,000 and sentenced to one year in prison. However in 1989, Justice J. Brennan, after the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, overturned the decision, and cited that Federal Flag Protection is unconstitutional, and that the accused was protected with the First Amendment. Accordingly, Johnson was entitled with his freedom of expression and to convict him of flag desecration violates his privilege as citizen of the State. Justice Brennan declared upon closure that "punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering" (Texas v. Johnson, 1989). Wex of Cornell University ("First amendment, 2006) cited that "The First Amendment of the United States Constitutionprotects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference." It implies the prohibition to condense expression only by "speech" but not any act of expression that encompasses the deliverance of freedom and expression, especially if it is to invoke higher authorities for a civilian's ideas and concerns United States vs Eichman 11 June 1990 Another American flag burning incident happened in 1990 by Shawn Eichman, Dave Blalock, and Scott Tyler on the steps of the United States Capitol (United States v. Eichman, 1990). The act was to protest against American foreign and domestic policy. Warren S. Appel (2007) in his study of United States vs Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) cited that the case challenged the 1989 Flag Protection Act that prohibits any form of desecration of the American flag - which is also an exact act of disposal of worn-out flags. The verdict was the same in Texas vs Johnson's case as applied to the accused by the court that the act is protected with the First Amendment's freedom of speech. The case earned 5-4 votes decision the same way it did in Texas vs Johnson case (U.S. Supreme Court. Texas v. Johnson, 1989). Similarity of these cases can be seen in the 1968 United States vs O'Brien, where David Paul O'Brien and three companions burned their Selective Service Registration certificates in front of South Boston Courthouse in 1966 (Alfange, 1968). They were horded with furious civilians who witnessed the act. An FBI agent marshaled them inside the courthouse to safety from the attacking mob. O'Brien presented the charred certificates to have it photographed with his consent. The story goes that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts tried, convicted, and sentenced O'Brien with his act. He appealed to the jury with his statement "so that other people would reevaluate their positions with Selective Service, with armed forces, and reevaluate their place in the culture of today, to hopefully consider my position."(Alfange, 1968). He indirectly stated, but implied that his anti-war belief be accepted in which the country had a conflict with Vietnam during that period. O' Brien argued that the 1965 Amendment that prohibits purposeful destruction of certificates was unconstitutional. He emphasized the suppression of his freedom of "speech" or expression, and that the amendment served no legitimate legislative purpose (Alfange, 1968). The District Court refused to accept O'Brien's justification; the court found that the First Amendment could not be applied for this. Instead, the action taken by the Government was to petition for ceriatori in No.232 as the 1965 Amendment was conflicting in other aspects of the Constitutional Law in cases like this (Alfange, 1968). Conclusion The American flag and American certification could be symbolic representations of the Nation regarding the cases discussed. However, these differ in value and protection of the law. The common ground is that they were utilized to express an objective and opinion towards the administration. Burning of the flag cannot be instantly taken to mean intently burning or destroying the image of the nation. Some, however, use this to show disagreement towards a certain political resolution that could affect greatly other civilians. Nonetheless, the act could be disturbing to others. Burning of flag may be a form of expression, but it is a reckless, disrespectful, and inconsiderate act, whereas one can express opinion in other forms safe from any possible liabilities. Works Cited "Cracking the Flag-Burning Amendment." June 23, 2005. 19 Aug 2007. . Apel, Waren S. "The United States v. Eichman Et Al. Appeal from the District Court for the District of Columbia." 21 Aug. 2007. . Dean Alfange, Jr. Free Speech and Symbolic Conduct: The Draft-Card Burning Case. The Supreme Court Review, Vol. 1968, pp. 1-52. 19 Aug. 2007 First Amendment. Cornell University Law School: Wex. July 2006. 19 Aug. 2007 Foppian, Steven. What Ever Happened to Free Speech Unveiling the Light. 20 Aug 2007 History of the Flag. 20 Aug 2007. Library of Congress. Thomas: 108th Congress Report House of Representatives. Accessed August 19, 2007. < http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T&report=hr131&dbname=cp108&> Luckey, John. Flag Protection: A Brief History and Summary of Recent Supreme Court Decisions and Proposed Constitutional Amendment. 4 June 2003. 19 Aug 2007. http://72.14.235.104/searchq=cache:Thinj-hxE9EJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-709.pdf+burning+of+flag+during+the+Vietnam+conflict+on+1968&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ph Safire, William. Desecration. The New York Times. 31 July 2005. 20 Aug 207. . Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Eichman. Appeal from the District Court for the District of Columbia. Argued: May 14, 1990 --- Decided: June 11, 1990. 21 Aug 2007. Texas v. Johnson (docket #: 88-155) (1989) [Findlaw] 19 Aug 2007. . The Constitution and the American Flag. Flag of Flags.com. The United States Flag - Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Retrieved on December 7, 2006. U.S. Supreme Court. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) 491 U.S. 397. Texas v. Johnson Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.No. 88-155. Argued March 21, 1989 .Decided June 21, 1989. 21 Aug 2007. . Read More