Congressional Impotence: Better Than it Sounds
June 28th, 2006So a few weeks ago, a gay marriage ban was proposed in the Senate. Sanity won (barely), but it took a few days of hand-wringing and head-shaking to get to the expected result. Today, the Senate proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would ban desecration of the American flag. Once again, sanity won (by a single vote), but it took time and gave Senators some much-craved attention. But these last two proposed amendments force me to ask what everybody asks at least five times every year: “What the hell does Congress think it’s doing?”
Sadly, my answer is: exactly what they’ve always done. And really, as scary as it is for Senators to have actual, heated debates about how best to curtail our rights, all this talk really isn’t new, and it’s not as harmful as we might fear.
First, let me get the obvious points out of the way so I’m not misunderstood. I am opposed to any proposed federal ban on gay marriage, flag burning, or any human activity. The government (particularly the federal government) ought to have no business in outright bans of peaceable behavior. Yes, flag-burning I consider peaceable because it doesn’t necessarily accompany a riot. If it does, punish the rioters for rioting (which, I’m pretty sure is already frowned upon by our various governments). Anyway, the point in a nutshell: we have the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and I see no reason to add exceptions to either of them.
Also, these particular proposed bans are incredibly pointless. Is flag-burning a huge problem in America? If so, does it really deserve national attention and its own amendment to the Constitution? I think these questions can best be answered with a hypothetical situation. Put yourself at an anti-American rally. (For the sake of argument, pretend you’re pro-America.) You’re wandering by, say, the Washington Monument, when you stop to watch a Constitutionally protected activity — a peaceful demonstration. Suddenly, you see a man at the center wave Old Glory, then douse it in gasoline and set it ablaze. The dozen people demonstrating shout with glee.
Now, consider who’s affected by the demonstration. The people doing the burning are trying to make a strong, anti-American statement. Granted, it’s probably a poorly reasoned, unpopular statement, but it’s a statement nonetheless. These folks, obviously, are not negatively affected by the desecration of the flag. You, as a witness and lover of All Things America, are saddened to see such hatred for your country. The kittens that play in your head stop batting at the yarn and start to cry. The angry part of you wishes that all flags were made of flame-retardant fabric. But then you turn on the logical part of you that knows that these people are idiots, and however unfortunate it may be, they’re idiots with the right to demonstrate. So even if you’re upset by the sight of a burning American flag, it probably won’t do great psychological harm. If it does, that’s your own damn problem.
Bring in the impressionable children who witnessed the rally (it’s always about the children, after all). They see people hating America, so maybe they’ll decide that they, too, should hate America. Then maybe they’ll forget about it and play with Legos. Or maybe their parents will try to get them to understand the situation as you do, and they’ll develop a healthy attitude toward our freedom. But that’s pie-in-the-sky American optimism for ya.
The final possible entity to be harmed is the state itself. Anti-government rallies don’t make Uncle Sam look too good, after all. But realize that quashing anti-government demonstrations would make him look even worse. So we’re back at square one — the proper solution is to punish and prosecute any violence, not the demonstrations that may have egged it on.
Okay, I’ve rambled enough about flag burning. Plus, you already know my feelings about gay marriage. So let me get to my original points.
These proposed amendments, even if they got through the Senate, still had zero chance of full passage. If by some miracle two divided Congressional bodies each vote two-thirds in favor, it would still require a majority vote from three-quarters of the states. Those are some fucking hurdles. As nationalized as we’ve become, it’d be virtually impossible for an amendment to pass unless it was clearly important to a vast majority of the people. There may be people who are outraged that there are guys on Earth who burn flags and marry dudes, but I don’t think the country can muster the outrage required to put it in the Constitution. And I think every lawmaker in the country understands that.
It’s gotten to the point where a proposed Constitutional amendment is tantamount to a Congressional resolution. There’s no chance they’ll ever become law and they only serve to “send a message” to whomever still pays attention to Congress. This sort of shit happens all the time in even-numbered years so that Congressmen can “improve” their voting record in the eyes of their constituents. So his base can see that Rep. Allen P. Schweimerdimmer (Democrat – East Dakota) has a 100% voting record in the eyes of the National Lobby for Getting Queer Flag Burners Out of East Dakota (NLGQFBOED), while at the same time, he’s never actually responsible for stealing anyone’s rights. It’s what those on the Hill call, “having your cake and eating it too”.
I agree (with you, the imaginary reader), it’s frustrating as shit to see another pig-headed idea get proposed before dying an all-too merciful death. But look on the bright side: Congress is spending its time arguing about something that they all know will never result in the enactment of a new law. I think that’s something we should be happy about.
-Darrell