The Oregonian | June 25 2005

Once again, we find the U.S. House passing a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning.

What's harder to find is flag-burning.

Ever since 1989, when the Supreme Court declared flag-burning to be constitutionally protected speech -- Justice Antonin Scalia was part of the majority -- the greatest risk to an American flag has been a politician wrapping himself in it. But the lack of any real issue has never stopped congressmen from trying to enact the first constitutional amendment that limits expression instead of protecting it.

Most members of congress are too busy posturing to actually read the Supreme Court decision, so we'll lend them a copy instead of a match:

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable," wrote Justice William Brennan. "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

For years, the amendment was a free House vote, because the Senate could be counted on to block the idea that the Constitution needed to be rewritten into a 30-second attack ad. But with the gain of four GOP senators last November, the Senate might start chasing nonexistent fires as well.

It's an ideal time for Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, who voted for the amendment in 2000, to reconsult his strong feelings about minority rights and free expression.

The increased GOP senator count isn't the only relevant number here. Right now, Congress itself has its lowest approval numbers in more than a decade, only increasing its interest in cheap posturing. What might really be useful is an amendment to ban the use of the flag in political grandstanding.

The flag has been around for more than two centuries, and has stood for something powerful and unchangeable. The American flag doesn't need protection from Americans.

Congress might.