Hatch voices his support for U.S. flag protection bill
The debate could last up to a week, just before the Senate adjourns for the Fourth of July recess. A vote date is not certain. The bill has 60 cosponsors and needs 67 to pass, under constitutional rules. If passed, it would go to the states for ratification. The American Civil Liberties Union says the measure is one vote short of passing.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, spoke for more than an hour on his support for the amendment, stressing that it does not ban anything and does not affect the First Amendment.
He explained that the vote of one judge in a 1989 Supreme Court decision made flag protection laws that were constitutional one day, unconstitutional the next. He said the 5-4 decision in the Texas v. Johnson case took away the rights of the 48 states — and the people — that chose to have laws to protect the flag.
"The flag is a unique symbol of our nationhood that demands protection," Hatch said. "The court got this one wrong, it got it very wrong."
Hatch, along with other senators that support the amendment, said they want to change the Constitution to give Congress the power to pass a law to protect the flag. If approved by Congress and the three-fourths of the states, it would be up to Congress to figure out what exactly a flag protection law would allow or ban, the consequences, enforcement and other details. The proposed law would still need to go through the regular legislative channels.
"The danger of this amendment is that is would strike at the values the flag represents and the rights that have made this nation a vibrant democratic republic in which we have enjoyed freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom to think as individuals," Leahy said. "What is so distinctive about America is that our government does not endorse a religion or a political orthodoxy. . . . We value our freedom and protect the freedom of others."
Durbin said the proposed amendment is because the White House is nervous about the election
"We are not setting out to protect Old Glory, we are setting out to protect old politicians," Durbin said on the floor. "This amendment is truly a solution in search of a problem.
Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, opposes the amendment because he does not want to alter the Constitution and has his own flag protection bill that sits untouched as long as the proposed amendment exists.
Bennett said commercials in Utah urge people to call his office to change his mind and vote for the flag amendment, but instead people call his office and tell him to stick to his position and to leave the Constitution alone.
He said earlier that he would not be making a speech on the amendment out of respect for Hatch.
E-MAIL: suzanne@desnews.com
You can be the first to comment on this story.