House votes to protect Old Glory
But Bennett, others likely to kill the bill in Senate
For the sixth time, the House on Wednesday passed HJR10, this time by a 286 to 130 vote. And for the sixth time it will go to the Senate, which has never mustered the two-thirds vote needed to send it on for ratification by the states.
"The American people want this," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, sponsor of the amendment in the Senate. "I believe this is the year that the Senate will join the House to send it to the states for ratification."
But an informal survey Wednesday by Associated Press suggested the amendment's prospects in the Senate are no brighter than in the past, unless there is a switch in position by one or more senators.
The tally found 35 senators — including Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah — on record as opposing the amendment, one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote, barring a change in position.
The Utah delegation was again split on the issue in Wednesday's House vote.
"The American flag is an enduring symbol of liberty, democracy and justice. But more than that, it is a reminder of the sacrifice of our nation's founders and defenders. It is our ultimate icon, and when it is attacked we are all attacked," said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, who said the flag deserves protection.
"Flag-burning is cowardly, but I agree with Sen. Bob Bennett when he says amending the Constitution is too drastic a step," Matheson said. "The Supreme Court has said that even offensive speech must be protected and that is part of what our fellow Americans have fought and died for."
Matheson also quoted Colin Powell, the former general and secretary of state, who said he would not amend "that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will fly proudly long after they have gone away," Matheson said.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who voted for the amendment, said, "The Founding Fathers always intended for the First Amendment to protect speech. But recent court decisions have expanded the definition of speech too far to include actions, such as strip clubs, picketing and flag burning, which are clearly not regular speech under the traditional definition."
The proposed amendment, Bishop said, does not restrict free speech but conforms to the original, traditional definition that existed before revisions by the Supreme Court.
You can be the first to comment on this story.