July 7, 1999
Dear Mr. Lowe:
Thank you for contacting me about H. J. Res. 33, which would outlaw the physical desecration of the American flag.
Our flag represents the cherished freedoms Americans enjoy to the envy of others. To our nations's veterans and military retirees, it is a constant reminder of the ultimate sacrifice they have made. Destroying our flag is an affront to all Americans, but to our veterans and military retirees it is much more than that. Our veterans and military retirees have put their lives on the line for our country, and the American flag is the only thing they can hold and say: "THIS is what I have defended with my life."
My father was a prisoner-of-war in World War II, captured at the Battle of the Bulge. He fought to protect our democratic freedoms. But he did NOT fight to let Americans destroy the very symbol of their own freedoms that he was willing to die for. Destroying the flag is tantamount to physically assaulting those heroes who would lay down their lives for their country. It is against the law for one American to assault another. And so should it be against the law for one American to assault an entire class of American heroes.
Again, I appreciate knowing your views. The are important to me and I hope you will continue to share them with me.
Sincerely,
s/s RONNIE SHOWS
Member of Congress
7/12/99
The Jackson Progressive replies:
Thank you, Mr. Shows, for graciously replying to my email letter regarding the Flag Amendment.
Unfortunately, we all share a well-known and ever-present instinct to outlaw harmless behavior that outrages us. Before the American Revolution, one could be prosecuted for merely criticizing the king, let alone desecrating the Union Jack. Our founders wanted no part of that, which is how we got our Bill of Rights.
The desecration of the American Flag falls squarely into that category. As offensive as it may be, it harms no one.
We all owe a great debt to our war veterans for the great service they rendered to our country. But the flag is not a kind of voodoo doll, an injury to which would hurt the nation that it represents. That is why desecrating the flag is not tantamount to physically assaulting our war heroes. They did not fight, suffer or die for the American Flag; only a fool would die for a flag. On the contrary, they fought, suffered and died for their nation and its constitution, for their communities and their loved ones, for a life of freedom and justice, of which the flag constitutes a potent symbol--but only a symbol.
On the other hand, you propose to attack with this amendment something solid and sacred; not a mere symbol; something that has assured us freedom and justice for over two hundred years and done so quite well without an amendment outlawing the desecration of the flag: The U. S. Constitution. The amendment you support is but a mere chink, but an extremely significant chink, in the guarantees of the First Amendment. There are those who would carve numerous other exceptions to the freedom to publically express our opinions and beliefs, literally and symbolically, and especially the freedom to criticize the government, that freedom from which all our other freedoms spring. Passage of this amendment would encourage them in their efforts to further circumscribe these basic freedoms.
Finally, the amendment, as written, would spawn endless litigation over the meaning of desecration. We need fewer laws, far less litigation and far more common sense. This amendment pushes us in the opposite direction.
No one doubts your sincerity, Mr. Shows. I certainly don't. But I also believe that you have not sufficiently reflected upon the likely consequences of the resolution you have supported. This is a bad amendment and should not be approved by the Congress.
Very truly yours,
Tom Lowe