I appreciate Adrian Cronauer’s reasoned support of the anti-flag desecration amendment to the Constitution (Op-Ed, Dec. 28), in contrast to the bluster that usually surrounds this issue.
I can’t, however, follow the logic that leads him to conclude our flag has a “secular sacredness” warranting special protections against the ravages of free speech. That he has heard so many good people speak passionately on the issue is clearly not enough; it has been well pointed out that popular points of view are not necessarily the ones that need protecting.
The proposed amendment is wrong because it specifically limits a form of political expression. That’s the fundamental issue, but there are other problems that make the amendment simply unworkable. What about enforcement? Are we really going to throw political protesters into federal prison–with the drug dealers and kidnappers–because they have chosen to express their views in a way that most Americans find distasteful? (And if we’re not going to enforce, what’s the point?)
Mr. Cronauer cites the impressive statistic that more than 9,000 constitutional amendments have been proposed this century, while only 11 have been ratified. Let us not forget that one of those amendments led to the disaster of Prohibition; another was required to undo the damage.
I urge our legislators not to support this wrong-headed amendment, which would weaken–not strengthen–our flag and precious Constitution.
