Flag burning up for debate again

WASHINGTON — The first time the Supreme Court weighed in on desecration of the nation's flag, the subject was beer. The court said states could outlaw flags on bottles of Stars and Stripes brew because such marketing would "degrade and cheapen" the flag.

That was 1907. Eighty-two years later, in 1989, the court concluded that the Constitution's right to free speech permitted the flag to be desecrated, even by burning it.

Majorities in both the Senate and the House have been trying to turn back the clock ever since.

Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee plans a vote this week on a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would give Congress the right to outlaw flag desecration. Debate could begin as early as today.

The House routinely has approved the flag amendment by broad majorities, but the Senate twice has fallen short of the necessary two-thirds vote needed to send the question to the states for ratification. This year, the amendment is expected to obtain 66 of the 67 required Senate votes.

"This is the place to stop it," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who believes it would harmfully limit the right to free speech. "This will be one of the most important votes we cast in this session."

Flag burning, which became an eye-catching way of protesting the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s, happens infrequently today. The pro-amendment Citizens' Flag Alliance lists three instances of flag desecration this year, including one involving a drunk who tore two small flags from a sailor's monument in West Haven, Conn.

Meanwhile, Gallup polls have chronicled a drop in public support for amending the Constitution to protect the flag, to 55 percent last year from 71 percent in 1989.

Still, the idea rubs emotions raw. All 50 states have adopted resolutions in recent years advocating a flag-protection amendment, and some polls show backing in conservative states as high as 70 percent. Amendment backers and opponents agree that the Senate is the only obstacle standing in the way of ratification by three-quarters of the states, as the Constitution requires.

Some Republicans criticize Frist for pushing the amendment, which they see as more about rallying conservative voters for November's congressional elections than about governance. Earlier this month, Frist held votes on two other hot-button conservative issues, outlawing gay marriage and repealing the estate tax, even though both were bound to fail.

"The House and Senate floor is about substantive work for the nation, and I think campaigns ought to be kept in the streets where they belong," said former House Republican Leader Dick Armey of Texas. "Frist seems to be going about 80 percent politics and 20 percent policy, though I would be hard pressed to find what that 20 percent is."

Republicans concede that it's unlikely the Senate will pass the amendment. They say some senators who have voted for the amendment previously to avoid political backlash at home — knowing then that it wouldn't pass the Senate — would likely vote "no" if it looked as if the amendment were about to pass.

Support for the amendment is bipartisan, with 14 Senate Democrats, including Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, favoring it. But there are important opponents as well, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the second-ranking Republican leader in the Senate.

Protecting the First Amendment takes precedence, McConnell said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

"I think the First Amendment has served us well for over 200 years," McConnell said. "I don't think it needs to be altered."

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.