American Constitutional Law, Essay Example

Flag burning is one of the most controversial issues covered by media in the U.S. society. A large pool of constitutional legislation, rights and law surround the issue. The society of the United States is divided based on their opinion on flag burning; supporters claim that it is a constitutional right to express one’s opinion and demonstrate against something one does not agree with. Those who oppose flag burning, on the other hand, state that burning a flag is an offensive and anti-democratic way of expressing an opinion. Further, dissenters state that a flag is the representation of justice, truth and constitution.

The federal law does prohibit the desecration of a U.S. flag in any way, including by fire. However, related to other countries’ flags, no agreement has been reached yet. According to Head (2012), the proposed law to ban flag burning did not pass the Senate and the House of Representatives, while in 1994 it did pass the House of Representatives but failed to gain support from the Senate. As freedom of speech is the foundation of the U.S. constitution and banning the expression of views would restrict residents in this constitutional right, it is not likely that the proposed law would come into effect and create a legal precedent soon.

Justice John Paul Stevens, from his dissent in Texas v. Johnson (1989) stated that “it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.” However, his argument still did not impress policymakers. There are several laws that prohibit the desecration of a flag; such as the Federal Flag Desecration Law (1968), which was created as a response to demonstrators against the Vietnam War burning American flags. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that “flag desecration is a constitutionally protected form of free speech” (Head, 2012).

Indeed, flag burning is a symbolic act and a way of expressing one’s opinion. When looking at recent political caricatures published online, it does not make sense that desecrating symbols of the U.S. constitution in writing or on paper should be allowed on the basis of media independence and free speech, while the actions should be banned.

Representation and caricaturization of the U.S. constitution is a popular way of expressing opinion in the media. An example is Ann Telnaes’ political cartoon that depicts the U.S. Congress as a fat man with bare backside that covers up the private parts with the American Flag. (Talneas, 2012). The U.S. Constitution protects the author’s right to depict their opinion in an offensive form, therefore, the action should not be banned, either. The freedom of free speech is every American’s constitutional right, therefore, even if people decide to demonstrate their views in an offensive form, it should be allowed. As the U.S. flag is not a legal entity, it cannot be protected from violence.

As many congressmen argue that the U.S. flag is the symbol of the country’s Constitution and achievement, it is time to think whether this is a general truth. It is impossible to state that for all individual citizens of the United States the flag means the same. And as the Constitution and the flag are often depicted in an offensive way by press political cartoonists, it would be wrong to ban flag burning. To quote Richard Savage (2006): “Those who would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but amending the Constitution would destroy part of freedom itself”.

References

Head, T. (2012) “Flag burning laws – History of U.S. laws against flag burning” Retrieved from http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/p/flagburning.htm

Savage, R. (2006) Speech at the Congress; Congressional Record. Vol. 152. pt. 9.

Telnaes, A. (2012) “A correct way to hang an American flag” Retrieved from http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=25544

Texas v. Johnson (1989) Oral Argument. Dissenting Opinion presented by Supreme Court Justice Stevens.