01/22/2002 08:03 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 22, 2002
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Harry Crawford
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Relating to an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States prohibiting desecration of the Flag of the United States.
- MOVED HJR 30 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 30
SHORT TITLE:DESECRATION OF U.S. FLAG
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOTT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1947 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1947 (H) STA, JUD
01/22/02 2025 (H) STA RPT 5DP 1NR
01/22/02 2025 (H) DP: WILSON, STEVENS, JAMES,
FATE,
01/22/02 2025 (H) COGHILL; NR: HAYES
01/22/02 2026 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.STA/LAA)
01/22/02 2026 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
01/22/02 2034 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL
01/22/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HJR
30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives Fate,
Stevens, Hayes, and Coghill were present at the call to order.
Representatives James and Wilson arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HJR 30-DESECRATION OF U.S. FLAG
Number 0055
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30, Relating to an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States prohibiting desecration of the
Flag of the United States.
Number 0134
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, read her testimony on behalf of the sponsor as
follows:
The core of this resolution is found on page 3, lines
3-8:
"Be it resolved by the Alaska State Legislature that
the Congress of the United States is [requested] to
pass House Joint Resolution 36 or Senate Joint
Resolution 7, or comparable legislation, and present
to the legislatures of the several states an amendment
to the Constitution of the United States that would
specifically provide [the] Congress power to prohibit
the physical desecration of the Flag of the United
States; ..."
The American flag has long been enshrined as a symbol
of what is right with America and is a most worthy
emblem of our nation. In fact, until being overturned
by a 1989 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-
to-4 vote, the American flag was consistently afforded
protections under state law in 48 out of 50 states.
These laws survived five various challenges in the
Supreme Court until finally failing in a case called
Texas v. Johnson. And I'll tell you a little bit
about that case, because it's quite interesting:
Number 0271
After publicly burning an American flag as a means of
political protest, Gregory Johnson was convicted for
desecrating the American flag in violation of Texas
law. While at the Republican National Convention in
Dallas, 1984, Mr. Johnson participated in a political
demonstration dubbed ... the "Republican War Chest
Tour." The purpose of the event was to protest the
policies of the Reagan Administration and of certain
Dallas-based corporations. The demonstrators marched
through Dallas streets, chanting political slogans and
stopping at several corporations to stage "die-ins."
And what they were trying to do was ... protest the
consequences of nuclear war. On several occasions
they spray-painted walls of buildings and overturned
potted plants. Johnson himself did not take part in
these activities. He did, however, accept an American
flag that was handed to him by a fellow protestor
who'd taken it from the flagpole outside one of the
targeted buildings.
The demonstration ended in front of Dallas City Hall,
where Johnson unfurled the American flag, doused it
with kerosene, and set it on fire. While the flag
burned, the protesters chanted, "America, red, white,
and blue, we spit on you!"
After the demonstrators dispersed, a witness to the
flag-burning collected the flag's remains and buried
them in his backyard. No one was physically injured
or threatened with injury, though several witnesses
testified that they were seriously offended by the
flag-burning.
Number 0425
Of the approximately 100 demonstrators, Johnson alone
was charged with a crime. The crime he was charged
with was the desecration of a venerated object in
violation of Texas penal code. Johnson was convicted
of flag desecration - for burning the American flag,
rather than for uttering any words. Of note, Texas's
penal code required the intentional or knowing abuse -
that is, the kind of mistreatment that is not
innocent; it's intentionally designed to seriously
offend other individuals.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan ruled that
the states may not prevent flag-burning, as it was [a]
protected expression under the First Amendment.
The law, as interpreted by the United States Supreme
Court, we believe, no longer accords the nation's
precious banner the reverence and respect befitting
the symbol of our noble experiment called "America."
This is what President Lincoln called "our last, best
hope of mankind."
Number 0486
This resolution supports congressional HJR 36 and
Senate [Joint] Resolution 7. Both resolutions ask
Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the
states for ratification. If agreed to by three-
fourths of the states, the amendment would empower
Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the
flag. No other issue on Capitol Hill has the
endorsement of 80 percent of the American people [and]
the majority of the U.S. House of Representatives and
[the] Senate. And, as of August 2001, 100 percent of
the state legislatures had, at one time or another,
passed various resolutions similar to what we're
asking you to approve.
Number 0550
We realize that there's strong opposition to this
issue, and we respect those people [who] disagree.
... This is a critical facet of American free
expression, and ... the exchange of ideas [is] the
hallmark of our society.
U.S. Senator Ted Stevens issued a news release on a
similar resolution [February 4, 1998]. He says:
"Noting that Alaskans are strong in their belief that
our flag should not be desecrated, the power to amend
the Constitution demands a cautious respect. It is a
considerable power - one that has helped to chart the
course of our history. We should not jump into
headlong ... amendments. But we should not be afraid
to act on our beliefs, either." He continues: "The
U.S. Supreme Court has given us a choice. We can
accept ... that the First Amendment allows the
desecration of [America's flag], or we can change the
law to prevent it."
MS. SYLVESTER continued:
The citizens of the United States have set in motion a
grassroots campaign of unprecedented success, and it
is with great respect that we ask the members of the
Alaska State Legislature to affirm the efforts to
change the law to protect the monument that is our
national flag.
Number 0646
Until 1989, 48 states, out of 50, had statutes
prohibiting the burning of the flag. Most of these
state statutes are patterned after the "Uniform Flag
Act [of] 1917." Section 3 of that statute provides
that "no person shall publicly mutilate, deface,
defile, defy, trample upon, or by word or act cast
contempt upon any such flag, standard, color, ensign
or shield." Most of these laws were passed by the
states at about the time of World War I.
The American flag, then, throughout history, has come
to be the very symbol embodying our nation. It does
not ... represent the views of any political party.
It does not represent any [particular] ... political
philosophy. In fact, the veterans of the Vietnam War,
upon returning home to a rejecting nation, found
singular comfort and solace in the symbol of the
American flag, distinct and separate from the citizens
and political leaders that had sent them to fight.
Number 0738
The flag is not another idea or "point of view" that
filters to the top of pop culture. Millions and
millions of Americans regard it with an almost
mystical reverence, regardless of their divergent
political and social beliefs. We maintain that the
American flag is a national monument, a special kind
of personality. Its use ... is traditionally and
universally subject to special rules and regulations.
The dissenting opinion authored by Chief Justice
Rehnquist argued that it was Johnson's use of this
particular symbol, not the idea that he sought to
convey, ... or any of his other expressions, for which
he was punished. The fact is, Mr. Johnson was
convicted for his use of the American ... flag, for
its desecration. Similar to the desecration of the
American soldiers who were dragged through the streets
of Mogadishu, burning or trampling of the American
flag carries an air of villainy, of treachery.
Number 0798
With respect, the sponsor requests that the House
State Affairs Committee pass HJR 30 and urge the
Senate to act on [its] joint resolution and send [an]
amendment to the states for their consideration and
ratification. This resolution has no ... fiscal
impacts, as it is a mere communication to the
Congress.
Number 0820
CHAIR COGHILL said the resolution would be heard in other
committees, and he would like the House State Affairs Standing
Committee to focus mostly on the policy issues surrounding the
resolution. In reference to a previous comment by Ms.
Sylvester, he responded as follows: "You said it's a 'mere'
request. I don't know that it's a 'mere' request; it's a
significant request in my view."
Number 0895
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked Ms. Sylvester if she knew of any
other nations with constitutional protection of their flags.
MS. SYLVESTER replied no; however, she told Representative Hayes
she could find an answer to his question. She added that her
interest focused on how this issue had historically been treated
in the United States.
Number 0935
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated his belief that [HJR 30] was
probably a good idea. He added that he thought the First
Amendment was a good idea. Having served for three years in the
United States Army, he said he felt very fond of the flag and
was concerned about anyone burning or mutilating it.
Representative Stevens asked how far the issue would truly go.
For instance, he mentioned "kids" who wear the flag [design] as
clothing, and he said he owned a cap with the flag of it. He
questioned how "contempt" would be defined.
Number 0978
MS. SYLVESTER answered that many groups have codes regarding the
flag: raising the flag; lowering the flag; when to take the
flag off after it has become frayed; and wearing a [flag] patch
"on the seat of your pants." She clarified that the "language
of these statutes" addresses the intentional defacement, or
defilement, of the American flag. She surmised that the focus
of [the aforementioned perpetrator who burned the flag] was not
to hurt the flag, but to offend others. It was an aggressive
action addressing an audience, she said. She illustrated that
wearing a "flag tie" is just a harmless act, whereas ripping or
spitting on the flag in front of a group of veterans or firemen
at "ground zero" would have a different intention, and that is
the offense.
Number 1055
CHAIR COGHILL said, "I would think that there's a ... big
difference between 'disrespect' and 'desecration.'"
Number 1068
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thought [the United States] had
lasted as long as it has because of the programs that were
instituted by our forefathers in the beginning. She mentioned
people hating [the United States] as an entity. Representative
James said she struggles with allowing those who don't agree
with the U.S. government and who profess extreme beliefs, such
as communism, [to live in the United States]. She conceded:
"We can't have 100 percent of us agreeing that our government
currently works correctly, when not always does it do that."
Likewise, absolutely perfect rules that suit everyone cannot be
made, she added.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES characterized the flag as being the
representation of who [Americans] are. She pondered what the
U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, regarding wearing the flag as
clothing, would be, if "we went this far on this issue." She
added that she would not like the U.S. Supreme Court to decide
that one person's wearing of the flag was negative, and
therefore objectionable, whereas another person's wearing of the
flag was positive, and therefore allowable. She expressed her
support of HJR 30, but recommended that the committee find out
what the results of its action would be. She posited that
having a constitutional amendment from the federal level, put
out to the states for ratification, is probably a necessary
process.
Number 1350
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she was interested to hear what the
House Judiciary Standing Committee would have to say regarding
HJR 30. She suggested the sponsor of HJR 30 find out the
opinions of people nationwide regarding the resolution. She
said: "I think we need to broaden the discussion on this issue,
because we don't want to do something that divides us; we want
to do something that puts us ... more in agreement with one
another." She added that it was difficult for her to believe
that any person could live in this nation and not respect the
flag.
Number 1385
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HJR 30 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HJR 30 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 8:22
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|