YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Bush Asks Ban on Flag Desecration : Backs Constitutional Amendment in Wake of Supreme Court Ruling

June 28, 1989|JAMES GERSTENZANG | Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush, declaring that "support for the First Amendment need not extend to desecration of the American flag," called Tuesday for a constitutional amendment to prohibit such protest.

"Flag burning is wrong. . . . As President, I will uphold our precious right to dissent, but burning the flag goes too far and I want to see that matter remedied," he said.

By stepping into the highly emotional issue that was opened last week when the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the burning of the flag as a form of free speech, Bush joined a political clamor that mirrored last year's presidential campaign in which he successfully turned a spotlight on his support for the Pledge of Allegiance.

By the end of the day Tuesday, members of Congress also were lining up to voice opposition to flag burning.

The House, by a vote of 411 to 5, passed a resolution--intended to demonstrate a leadership role for the Democrats on a political issue that Republicans have used successfully--that expressed "profound concern" with the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling. The Senate, by a vote of 97 to 3, passed a resolution last Thursday expressing "profound disappointment" about the court ruling.

And Rep. Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.) called Tuesday for a special Fourth of July congressional session to adopt a constitutional amendment banning desecration of the flag.

Bush, speaking at a morning news conference, acknowledged that "we've got to be very careful in our society" to protect the right of protest.

"However, I believe that the flag of the United States should never be the object of desecration," he said. "Protection of the flag, a unique national symbol, will in no way limit the opportunity nor the breadth of protest available in the exercise of free speech rights."

That view contrasted with the opinion of the majority on the court, for which Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote: "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

But Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in dissent, said that he could not fathom how a government that can order soldiers to "fight and perhaps die for the flag" may not punish people for "the public burning of the banner under which they fight."

In the view of political consultants and other political figures, the emotional tug of the issue--and the political favor attached to it--cannot be underestimated. And, one of them suggested, this was not lost on the President.

"It's leadership George Bush style--find an issue 80% of the people agree with you on and step out front on it," said Democratic political consultant Harrison Hickman.

Deep-Seated Feeling

One White House official portrayed the President's support for an as-yet-undefined constitutional amendment as one that reflects a deep-seated feeling as well as the political common sense that made his support for the Pledge of Allegiance a powerful campaign issue--despite what he described as the President's ability "to understand another point of view."

"I'd have thought the more Bush thought about it, the more he'd understand the Supreme Court's view. I guessed wrong," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There are high-brow, legalistic arguments--free speech and all of that--but it just doesn't pass the common sense test" of the President.

White House officials said that Bush raised the subject of a constitutional amendment in a meeting late Monday with White House counsel C. Boyden Gray. But, they said, there were no other meetings on the issue, that an organized White House effort to prepare specific language for a proposed amendment may be a week or more away and that it is not certain if Bush will simply endorse one of several amendment proposals raised in Congress.

A constitutional amendment, once approved by two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate, must be approved by the legislatures in 38 states.

While amendments repeatedly have been proposed to overturn controversial Supreme Court decisions, only four such amendments have been adopted. One, the 26th Amendment that gave 18-year-olds the right to vote, took only a year to be passed and ratified, but others have taken decades.

Even as momentum appeared to be building in Washington for efforts to counter the court's decision, there were voices of dissent from several quarters.

Sen. Gordon J. Humphrey, a conservative Republican from New Hampshire who has announced that he will not seek reelection next year, said in an interview: "Things have gotten blown out of proportion. There are very few instances of flag burning. What are we doing, talking about amending the Constitution to deal with these few cases?"

Los Angeles Times Articles