The humiliating experiences of the past few months have brought into sharp focus a need for legislative action to correct these abuses. It is difficult to demand apologies from other countries in which our flag is burned and torn to shreds when we do nothing here to stop un-American demonstrations. We must not allow this sneering complacency to be interpreted as our national sentiment. Many states have enacted similar laws and are now calling upon the Federal government to follow suit. It is almost inconceivable that a nation which has thrilled to the story of the writing of the "Star Spangled Banner" and to the raising of the flag by six Marines on Iwo Jima in 1945 does not have a law making the desecration of the flag a crime. Congress has adopted flag codes which tell how the flag should be displayed and used, but no penalties are attached for not observing the rules. We cannot legislate morality. We cannot instill in our rioters and demonstrators the same love of country and belief in honorable principles which inspired the writing of the "Star Spangled Banner", the raising of our flag in Iwo Jima, and which continues to inspire our brave fighting men in Vietnam-but we certainly can let them know they have crossed the line-they have gone too far— they have overstepped the bounds of an already overextended period of sanctimonious tolerance. Youth always has and always will be impulsive and sometimes easily led but their impulsiveness cannot excuse their irresponsible actions of disrespect and disdain. We cannot casually ignore the acts against our flag as temporary, as a passing fantasy of the young. We must act positively, and again express our support and abiding loyalty to our national honor and to our national emblem-our American flag. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES G. FULTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA I am appearing today in support of the proposed bills before the 90th Congress to protect the honor and respect of the American people for the Flag of the United States of America. We Americans must remember that the Flag is one of the official symbols of a united nation of fifty sovereign States. The Flag is not simply a decoration, nor yet a form of instrument, but is in and of itself a reflection of our history, our patriotism, and the loyal support by the American people of the Government of the United States of America. The loyal support of American citizens for our Government, depends not on whether we agree or disagree on the day to day policy of our Government at home and abroad. This loyal support of our American people does not depend upon the person elected to any office, or even to the highest office bestowed by the American people, the President of the United States of America. Such variety of opinion and recommendation for possible courses of action to be taken by our Government are likewise the heritage of every American. I therefore strongly recommend legislation be passed by this Congress protecting the American Flag as a shining symbol of hope, progress, and security for the American people in these troubled times, and for many millions of people without hope at home in troubled areas of this world. Congress of course must protect the right to disagree of every American citizen, as well as the right to petition and take steps to change United States policy of any kind or variety. This kind of freedom does not extend to the vicious acts which would destroy and defile, or trample under foot the loyalties of the American people to the United States Flag, as one of our great heritage symbols. In my opinion, destroying, burning, trampling, or otherwise intentionally degrading the United States Flag is not only to be construed as an act of disagreement, but goes much further, and constitutes an act of disloyalty. Under these circumstances, I therefore believe and strongly recommend the passage of these proposed resolutions which will prevent destroying, burning, trampling, or otherwise intentionally degrading the United States Flag. My own Resolution which I have sponsored is H.R. 9183, a copy of which I place in this statement. I am including in my remarks the letter and resolution of May 22, 1967 of Brookline Post No. 540 American Legion, of which I am a member. This Post strongly endorses legislation that makes desecration of the United States Flag a Federal offense. I am proud to present the Statement of The Legion of Valor of the United States, Inc. from their General Orders for Flag Day 1966: "I am Old Glory: For more than eight score years I have been the banner of hope and freedom for generation after generation of Americans. Born amid the flames of America's fight for freedom, I am the symbol of a country that has grown from a little group of thirteen colonies to a united nation of fifty sovereign states. Planted firmly on the high pinnacle of American Faith my gently fluttering folds have proved an inspiration to untold millions. Men have followed me into battle with unwavering courage. They have looked upon me as a symbol of national unity. They have prayed that they and their fellow citizens might continue to enjoy the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which have been granted to every American as the heritage of free men. So long as men love liberty more than life itself; so long as they treasure the priceless privileges bought with the blood of our forefathers; so long as the principles of truth, justice and charity for all remain deeply rooted in human hearts; I shall continue to be the enduring banner of the United States of America. I am Old Glory!" BROOKLINE POST No. 540, INC., THE AMERICAN LEGION, Pittsburgh, Pa., May 22, 1967. Congressman JAMES G. FULTON, DEAR COMRADE JIM: Whereas, we the more than 500 members of Brookline Post 540 feel that a greater respect should be shown the flag of our Country, and Whereas, there have been numerous incidents related in the newspapers and on television of flag burning and desecration, and Whereas, we feel that a severe penalty should be imposed on those who defile our red, white and blue that many of us have fought to protect and uphold, and Whereas, there is now no law on the Federal statutes that makes desecration a Federal offense, Therefore, be it resolved that we ask you as an American and a law maker to work to get Bill #515 out of committee and on the docket and have legislation passed to put our flag over and above traitors and common punks. FRED C. WESLAGER, Adjutant. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. BYRON G. ROGERS, Chairman of Subcommittee 4, DEAR COLLEAGUE: Enclosed is a statement from Mr. Edward Papantonio of New York in support of legislation to prohibit flag desecration. Mr. Papantonio is Chairman of the National Americanism Committee for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. I believe Mr. Papantonio's statement will be most useful to the Subcommittee as the V.F.W. has been involved in several New York cases involving charges of flag desecration. I respectfully request that this statement by Mr. Papantonio be made a part of the official transcript of the hearings now under way before your Subcommittee on flag desecration. Thank you for your assistance in this matter, and with all good wishes, I am Sincerely, RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH. STATEMENT OF EDWARD PAPANTONIO, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AMERICANISM COMMITTEE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES While I appreciate this opportunity to submit a statement to your Subcommittee on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, it is regrettable that the necessity exists both for this statement and for the hearings which you now conduct. Although it is not my purpose to review the history of our country's flag, glorified in song and story since the founding of our nation, I would remind you that it has always been regarded as a sacred symbol of our dedication to the principles of freedom. Love of the flag, in my view, is an expression of the natural patriotic feeling we have for our country and its government-a govern ment described as the most noble experiment in the history of mankind—a land and a government having the universality of expressing the ancient hopes and yearnings of mankind for a better and fuller life. Expressions of patriotism in this vein should not be characterized as boastful affectations, or chauvinism, or brash nationalism. Our patriotism is a dedication which leads us to cherish what our founding fathers brought to the world, to defend it where it has taken root, to extend it where we reasonably can. Our organization is proud to express a love of country which is shared by the vast majority of those citizens who are privileged to have been under our nation's glorious banner. Until very recently, there has been no question raised concerning the important status of our flag. It has been, and is today regarded generally as the beautiful and symoblic standard of a mighty nation, wherein each individual possesses God-given freedom and rights, including the right to dissent. How tragic it is that this freedom is now construed, by some, as an absolute right to do what one pleases, without regard for decency, respect, custom, and the feelings of others. Greater is the tragedy when we realize that this reckless and irresponsible action is rapidly being clothed with the approbation of our Courts and our public press, sincerely motivated, we acknowledge, but so intent upon protecting the individual's "freedom of expression," as guaranteed under our Bill of Rights, that they are swinging the pendulum from the golden mean of moderation to the possible disorders of anarchy, where the individual can act without legal restraint. It would appear that, in their judgment, as long as the individual is sincerely motivated in his speech or conduct, that speech or conduct enjoys the protection of the First Amendment, regardless of whether it outrages decency and common courtesy, or whether it "gives aid and comfort to the enemy.” Today we find the violent dissidents, encouraged by the apparent tolerance of government and responsible individuals, carrying this conduct to a point beyond which no self-respecting citizen can permit it to go. Contempt for authority, defilement and desecration of our national institutions and symbols, have reached the stage where the citizens of this country are aroused to justifiable anger. We cannot allow this to continue! True it is, as our learned Attorney General has told us, that "the number of flag burners is infinitesimal—a handful among 200 millions." He does acknowledge that, should their number ever become substantial, their conduct would be a matter of deepest concern. The problem, however, is not limited to flag burning in and of itself. Desecration and defilement of our national standard has taken many forms; it has been torn and ripped in public places; it has been spit upon and ground underfoot; it has been used in extremist billboard campaigns in connection with a program to "impeach" high government officials; it has been displayed in a position subordinate to the flags of the Soviet Union and of Red China; it has been formed into a cadaver hanging from a noose, and formed into the shape of human phallus, all as part of a public "art" exhibition; the defilers have substituted a skull and crossbones for the stars of our nation's flag and carried this disgraceful banner in public parades in New York. Are we to permit these outrages in the name of “expressions of opinion," as suggested by one of the witnesses you have heard, who testified that flag burning is a form of dissent that should be protected by the constitutional right of free speech, and that pending legislation is aimed at suppressing points of view? A recent public exhibition of "protest art" in New York City resulted in the conviction of the exhibitor, the prevailing opinion holding that public exhibitions of the type involved cast contempt upon the flag of the United States. The opinion notes that the exhibit was reviewed by many art critics, including the critic for New York's most important newspaper, and was treated as a serious artistic, offering, in spite of the shocking indignities and desecration portrayed. No, gentlemen, the problem is not limited to isolated cases of flag burning-it has mushroomed into disgraceful disregard of our noble institutions as symbolized by the flag of our country. The dissidents have made the flag the central symbol of all of the conditions against which they protest. Their acts have been shameful, both in their increasing frequency and variety. The sum and substance of their intent exceeds the propriety of pure dissent-it adds up to disdain for any patriotic attachment to our country-a tendency toward mob rule and violence. Why a Federal Flag Law? Must our statute books continually be cluttered with new legislation? I would be the first to agree that laws should be kept at a minimum, but circumstances dictate that you act on this matter immediately, in the name of the overwhelming majority of sober, loyal citizens of the United States. Admittedly, there are laws prohibiting the desecration and defilement of our flag on the statute books of every state in the country, all using similar language, but all imposing different penalties for violations. The fines prescribed by these various statutes range from $5.00 to $2,000.00, and terms of imprisonment range from 30 days to 25 years. This is our national flag, belonging to all of the people—it is "our national honor that has been defiled and besmirched, and not any one particular state's honor." (Rep. Seymour Halpern, R., N.Y.) Under the present situation, there is little or no uniformity in penalties and prac tically no evidence of enforcement or prosecution under the state flag laws. We urge you to take such action as will insure the passage of a proper and reasonable statute, which will express the desires of all loyal citizens, for adequate safeguards in behalf of our national emblem. We recommend, especially, the provisions of H.R. 1207, introduced by our past Commander-in-Chief, Rep. Richard L. Roudebush of Indiana. This resolution is both clear and unambiguous in its language and reasonable in its imposi tion of penalties. I know that the 1,350,000 members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States join me in expressing our appreciation for the courtesy you have accorded us. STATEMENT OF AMVETS NATIONAL COMMANDER A. LEO ANDERSON Mr. Chairman and Members of This Subcommittee: AMVETS appreciates the invitation to present its views to this Committee with respect to the legislative proposals pertaining to acts of disrespect against the Untied States Flag. We commend the prompt and prudent action of this Committee for their timely and early scheduling of hearings on this most important subject, which is close to the hearts and minds of millions of United States citizens. Commenting specifically on proposed flag legislation, we do not believe that a short term approach based on the unfortunate situation which has been demonstrated repeatedly during the past months should be allowed to overshadow the very sound basis for clearly needed legislation to afford Federal protection for the Nation's Flag which would be consistent with the same Federal protection which has long been afforded our postage and coined and paper money. These latter have long enjoyed adequate protection against mishandling and misusage. For this reason AMVETS strongly supports a Bill which would provide adequate protection and sanctions, such as fines up to $1,000.00 and prison sentences of up to a year, for those individuals convicted of offenses against the Flag of the United States. Consideration should be given to providing a fine of not more than $10,000 where such offenses involve the organized participation of groups, associations or incorporated organizations and provision for adequate protection against acts by such "legal persons" should be provided in the law. The necessary Federal legislation should not supercede any existing laws of the respective states which in many areas already protect the Flag of our Nation. AMVETS is concerned however, that any such law provided for the protection of the United States Flag will be vigorously and adequately enforced by the appropriate arm of the Federal Government. We believe that the enforcement of the draft card burning law has been less than effective and we fell that no useful purpose is served by the enactment of laws which are not enforced or are unenforceable. Such laws merely add to the general disrespect of the law that is the underlying basis for much of the confusion and chaos in the present situation. AMVETS believes that there is a clear distinction between a symbolic act as a part of the "free expression", protected by the First Amendment and an “act of desecration", deliberately performed against the Nation's most important symbol which physically embodies all those ideals of freedom, patriotism, Americanism and for which, in the last century and a half so many Ameircans have given their lives. It is indeed the saddest of commentaries upon the times in which we live and the dismal failure of our educational systems to instill any real understanding or true appreciation of the values which our Constitution and its continuous defense by patriotic unselfish men and women, have given Americans, and that for the first time in our Nation's history we should be forced to provide the protection of law, to safeguard the physical safety and the honorable use of the Flag, and very key symbol of America. AMVETS thanks the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present our views at this time and is most appreciative of the privilege extended to us. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, LAW SCHOOL OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your courteous letter of 24 May inviting me to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on June 5 to present my views of HR 271 Sub 4 and companion measures to prohibit desecration of the national flag. I should be very glad to come, were it not for the inevitable pressures that bear on a professor in the first few days of June, requiring that I carefully read and grade a mass of examinations on which depend the graduation of a large number of anxious young men and women. May I, instead of appearing personally, submit this letter for the record? At the outset, I must make clear my own dismay and resentment when I hear of flag-burning or other disrespect for the flag, performed as a gesture of dissent from national policy. The flag symbolizes the constitutional system under which the United States exists. "American democracy is founded on debate", as General Westmoreland reminded the Associated Press meeting in New York last April 24. I deplore destruction of a national symbol to demonstrate protest against a governmental decision; but I recognize that tolerance of disesnt, tolerance even of irrational dissent, tolerance which the First Amendment exemplifies, is a sign of our constitutional strength. That tolerance is a convincing demonstration of our confidence in the rightness of our constitutional theory. I doubt the constitutionality of the legislation now under consideration, and in any event I consider its enactment unwise as a matter of policy. The Congress, by Title 36 U.S. Code § 176 has carefully warned against the use of the flag for any utilitarian purpose, and has prescribed that when "it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." Today's “flag burnings" take on their only significance by their quality of protest at a national policy with which the protesters disagree. Protest, even ill-tempered and indecorous protest, is constitutionally privileged. Two recent decisions involving draft-card burning are here suggestive. One of these, decided October 13, 1966 by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, is United States v. Miller, 367 Fed. 2d 72; the Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 13, 1967. The other, O'Brien v. United States, decided on April 10, 1967, is thus far unreported in the Federal Second reports. Accordingly I have attached to this letter a photocopy of the opinion. Both opinions stress the administrative function served by a draft-card. Both acknowledge the constitutional privilege of symbolic protect. Both hold that failure to carry a draft-card is a punishable offense. The words of Chief Judge Aldrich in O'Brien are peculiarly relevent "It has long been beyond doubt that symbolic action may be protected speech. [citing the Barnette and Stromberg cases] Speech, is, of course, subject to necessary regulation in the legitimate interests of the community, Kovacs v. Cooper, infra, but statutes that go beyond the protection of those interests to suppress expressions of dissent are insupportable. E.g. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940, 310 U.S. 296, 307-11: DeJonge v. Oregon, 1937, 299 U.S. 353 Terminiello v. Chicago, 1949, 337 U.S. 1. We so find this one." Secondly, I think that passage of H.R. 271 or one of its companion measures would accomplish no effective legislative purpose. Prison sentences and fines for the flag-burners would not increase respect for the flag; among their adherents such punishments would only increase the effect of the burnings by making martyrs of the burners. And in certain foreign countries we would open ourselves to propaganda that dissent about our present military policy had become so serious that we had been forced to usppress it by imposing prison sentences on the dissenters. I respectfully urge that this legislation be not passed. Perhaps you will indulge me in what is probably irrelevant. Yesterday was Memorial Day and at my house the flag was on its staff from sunrise to sunset. Sincerely yours, ARTHUR E. SUTHERLAND. |