The
funny, but not
ha-ha funny, thing is, enacting an
amendment protecting the
flag would not only
trample the
right to
freedom of expression, it would also do
violence to the (long
established, not exactly
literal, much discussed, somewhat
controversial,
Supreme Court affirmed) wall of
separation between church and state.
I'm out of my goddamned mind? Maybe not. Dig on this, the text of the proposed amendment, S. J. Res. 7:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Now, go ahead and click on desecrate. Go on! And then come back here.
Done? Okay. Part of Webster 1913's definition is "To divest of a sacred character . . . to violate the sanctity of . . ." Arguably, the government of the United States is supposed to be a secular government. That is, not overly entangled in religion. As a result, nothing should be "sacred" to the government, not even Old Glory.
Therefore, by enacting an amendment that allows Congress "to prohibit the physical desecration" of the flag would allow that the flag is something sacred. You can't desecrate a non-sacred thing, after all. If the flag is sacred, then the church-state separation is destroyed. Ergo, the flag burning amendment is a very Bad Thing.