•   News  
• Business
• Entertainment
• Pics
• Blogs
• Sports
• Obits
• Redskins
• Real Estate
• Classifieds
• Jobs
• Search Local
• Shop
• Bride & Groom

SPRINGFIELD--Throughout Ameri- ca's history, the right to express oneself has been the springboard of freedom. Indeed, the U.S. was founded on the concept of the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion.

Increasingly, however, attempts are being made to curtail these fundamental freedoms. From hate codes that punish people for their thoughts to the caging of free speech demonstrators at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, there are those who have come to believe that free speech is something to be feared. Even the president has gotten into the act. "There ought to be limits," George W. Bush has opined, "to freedom."

The latest salvo against our right to free expression is coming from our own lawmakers. A proposed constitutional amendment authorizes Congress to pass laws that would prohibit "the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." On June 22, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved this amendment by a vote of 286-130. The Senate is set to consider the amendment within the coming days, and a very close vote is expected.

One would think that a Constitutional amendment would be prompted only by a massive assault on the dignity of the flag or our country. Yet over the past five years, there have been only three dozen so-called flag desecrations in the United States. This is an infinitesimally small number, considering that the U.S. is composed of nearly 296 million people.

Since the government's interest in protecting the flag is not supported by a flood of flag burnings, what is pressing Congress to take such a dramatic measure? Could it be that the elections are drawing near? But the polls on the subject vary, showing that Americans are probably evenly divided on the issue.

Whatever the reasons behind this measure, the need for an amendment to our Constitution is minimal in comparison to the implications facing our individual freedoms.

There are a number of reasons why such an amendment, which creates an incredible tension within the Constitution, should be stalled. As the Supreme Court ruled in 1989, the First Amendment protects the type of symbolic speech that occurs in such acts as flag burning when done as part of a political protest. Are we now to say that the First Amendment can be overridden because three dozen people burned a flag?