H.J. Res. 10, Flag Desecration Resolution
H.J. RES. 10, FLAG DESECRATION RESOLUTION -- HON. BETTY McCOLLUM (Extensions of Remarks - July 11, 2005)
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
OF MINNESOTA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MONDAY, JULY 11, 2005
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I believe burning the flag is an offensive and disrespectful act. However, I oppose H.J. Res. 10, a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Rather, I rise in support of the amendment offered in the form of a substitute, H. Amdt. 337, which would ensure that the First Amendment right to free speech is protected and that any statute enacted by Congress attempting to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag would remain consistent with the First Amendment.
I have confidence my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can agree that the liberty and freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, and symbolized by our grand old flag, is our Nation's greatest strength. Everyday, the freedoms that surround us in our homes, schools and places of work here in this chamber, are a constant reminder of what out flag means, and what has been sacrificed to ensure its lasting stability and continuity in our Nation. Every day Congress is in session, we pledge allegiance to this flag, ``and to the republic for which it stands.''
The willful destruction of our Nation's flag is, indeed, deeply offensive. The flag is a symbol of our national unity and a source of national pride, and our flag deserves to be treated with respect at all times. Yet, despite my love for my Nation and the flag, and my deep appreciation for the men and women who yesterday and today fight and live their lives defending our Nation, I cannot support this resolution.
We must take heed of the constitutional parameters that will be reduced as a result of this amendment. One of our most cherished liberties is our freedom of expression. Every individual in America is truly free to express his or her opinions, without threat of hindrance or persecution. From time to time we undoubtedly may disagree with another's opinion. However, this does not mean that their views should be constricted by the Constitution. If we place any limits on this freedom, we are opening the possibility that further limitation can be placed on our freedom of expression at a later time. This resolution, H.J. Res. 10, will indeed serve to reduce that freedom which is so crucial and essential to the maintenance of a strong, vibrant democracy.
http://thomas.loc.gov