Burning issue.Burning Issue THE SUPREME COURT has now rejected as unconstitutional a second legislative attempt to answer the flag-burning question. The ball is thus back in Congress's court. What now? At ground level, Republican strategists see the issue as a splendid opportunity which can be exploited in the forthcoming off-year elections In American politics, an off-year election is generally considered to be the general elections held in odd-numbered years. These elections rarely feature any election to a national office, few state legislative elections, and very few gubernatorial elections. . What George Bush did to Michael Dukakis Michael Stanley Dukakis (born November 3, 1933) is an American Democratic politician, former Governor of Massachusetts, and the Democratic presidential nominee in 1988. He was born to Greek and Vlach immigrant [1] on the Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance, in full, Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, oath that proclaims loyalty to the United States. and its national symbol. can be done to the Democrats on flag-burning. On a more philosophical level, many conservatives believe the Supreme Court over the years has so imperialized its power that a rebuke is called for in the form of a constitutional amendment. The Court has made a habit of construing the language of the Constitution in strange ways--in this instance ruling that flag-burning is protected speech. How about walking nude down Pennsylvania Avenue Pennsylvania Avenue is a street in Washington, D.C. joining the White House and the United States Capitol. Called "America's Main Street," it is the location of official parades and processions, as well as protest marches and civilian protests. as protected political protest? Other conservatives shrink from Verb 1. shrink from - avoid (one's assigned duties); "The derelict soldier shirked his duties" fiddle, shirk, goldbrick avoid - refrain from doing something; "She refrains from calling her therapist too often"; "He should avoid publishing his wife's "cluttering up" the Constitution with an amendment on a subject of lesser magnitude. Still others think the worsk outcome would be for such an amendment to be sent to the states and then defeated. A provision does exist, however, in Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution itself. This provision appears to permit Congress to remove a matter such as this from the jurisdiction of the Court: "In all the other cases before mentioned the Court shall have appellate jurisdiction APPELLATE JURISDICTION. The jurisdiction which a superior court has to bear appeals of causes which have been tried in inferior courts. It differs from original jurisdiction, which is the power to entertain suits instituted in the first in stance. Vide Jurisdiction; Original jurisdiction. , both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" [Emphasis added]. Legal opinion differs on the actual efficacy of Article III, Section 2--largely because the provision is seldom used. Presumably pre·sum·a·ble adj. That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. , legislation would be introduced in Congress removing the flag issue from the jurisdiction of the Court. A simple majority of both Houses would suffice. What the Court might do about that, if anything, is terra incognita in·cog·ni·ta adv. & adj. With one's identity disguised or concealed. Used of a woman. n. A woman or girl whose identity is disguised or concealed. . Before moving to a constitutional amendment, it would be a sign of seriousness and good faith if Congress would at least explore the lesser solution in Article III, Section 2. Since it is already in the Constitution, a charge of "tampering" with the Constitution could not plausibly be leveled. Such an approach would stop well short of the heavy artillery of the amending process. If in the end, however, only a constitutional amendment can protect the flag, we should not embark on such a long-drawn-out and contentious process for such a narrow purpose. Any amendment should address the proper interpretation of the term "freedom of speech." We believe it means freedom of speech and not some broader category of actions into which judges can read an expression of political opinion. |
|
||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion