In yesterday's entry, I asked--as did others--why it was a wise use of the Senate's precious time to deal with flag desecration. After all, when was the last time you were on your way to the a gas station to fill up and were blocked by a mob of flag-burners?

But Senator Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican and lead sponsor of the constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, was not about to concede that his effort was not important. I heard him say that he had heard critics griping that protecting the flag from being torn in anger ain't a vital matter. And he had a response: it is a vital matter. Why? Because it was necessary to "send a message" to the Supreme Court. And what's the message? "You cannot usurp the power of the Congress of the United States."

I see. This is not really about safeguarding the Stars and Stripes. This is a spite match. Congress several years ago passed legislation to ban flag burning. The Supreme Court ruled, you can't do that (because that would infringe on free speech rights). So now Congress had to strike back. It's personal, Hatch was saying--and it's more about preserving the appropriate balance of power within the federal government than locking up folks who spray-paint "peace" (or "war") on the flag.

But if that's true, then why does Congress (and Hatch) not seek to pass a constitutional amendment every time the Court overturns a law? The GOP effort to win congressional approval of this proposed constitutional amendment--months before an election-seems related to issues other than ensuring the right checks and balances. Care to guess what they are?

Posted by David Corn at June 28, 2006 07:21 PM