Tuesday, June 27, 2006

U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Floor Statement on the Flag Desecration Amendment
Remarks as Delivered on the Senate Floor

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to allow the U.S. Congress to protect the American flag.

I was elected 2 years ago, in the most recent election. I ran on a campaign of three basic promises and commitments to the people of Georgia: The first was to support the President and our men and women in harm's way in the war on terror. The second was to work diligently for strong fiscal accountability on behalf of the Congress. And the third was to vote in favor of confirming the judges appointed by the President of the United States to the Federal bench. With those promises, I made the statement that I really felt as though the division of powers of our Constitution was sound, and that it was absolutely important for judges to interpret the law, not to make the law.

This amendment has been said by some to be a violation of the first amendment. This amendment has nothing to do with speech or expression. It has everything to do with protecting our flag and allowing the Congress to write those laws that would prohibit physical desecration of our flag.

Unlike some, I do not believe the flag is an inanimate object. I believe it is a living symbol for which our men and women in harm's way have fought for over two centuries.

Just a month ago, I went to Normandy. I went to Bellewood. I went to the Netherlands and Margraten. I went to Belgium and Carthage in Northern Africa. We did seven ceremonies in 6 days at seven American cemeteries, cemeteries where tens of thousands of Americans are buried, having paid the ultimate sacrifice in World War I and World War II. They died to protect the first amendment. But if those in the graves could come back and speak, I don't think a one would say they died to have the flag they fought for desecrated.

The courts have also been inconsistent in this case in my judgment about the first amendment and expression. The court, in 1989, in Texas v. Johnson, and in 1990 in the case of the United States v. Eichman, ruled that burning the flag was protected by the first amendment. I find it ironic that in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Virginia case, Virginia v. Black, that the burning of a cross in someone's front yard was not expression and, therefore, the Virginia law banning it was upheld.

I did a little research on that case which led me to find out that the District of Columbia has that law, the State of Georgia has that law, and many States in the United States have that law, which says the terrible act of desecrating a cross and burning it is protected--is fine for the States to do that. In fact, I read a little bit about Clarence Thomas's opinion written in that 2003 case, and I want to share his remarks because it applies directly to my point on protecting the flag and not allowing its desecration. Justice Thomas said:

This statute prohibits only conduct, not expression. ust as one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point.

I don't think it can be said more succinctly or more clearly.

The amendment that is to be voted on by this Senate, hopefully sometime today or tomorrow, is an amendment that does nothing to prohibit the speech of anyone but does everything to protect the flag from being desecrated. I think those brave men and women who died for this country would agree with that, I agree with that, and I think the people of Georgia agree with that. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of passage of the amendment.