Dear Senator Clinton,
Recently I read with interest your comments regarding the proposed partial criminalization of flag burning law in USA Today, namely,
"I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration," which I assume refers to HR 1974 IH, otherwise known as the Flag Protection Act of 2005.

As your constituent, I have a few questions about the text and intent of this bill, especially considering that your vote could be pivotal in ensuring its passage in the Senate.

First, why do you feel that the criminal penalties provided for in the act (fines and up to two years in [Federal?] prison) are necessary above and beyond the existing penalties for theft and/or destruction of personal or government property, or disturbing the peace? I hope you aren't offended, I am a bit confused by your implication that you do not support the proposed Constitutional amendment put forth by various members of the House "authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal penalties for that act." Isn't that the power which makes HR 1974 IH already Constitutional in adding penalties over and above existing laws regarding theft or disturbing the peace?

Secondly, how does flag-burning constitute a different kind of political speech than other symbolic rebukes of the government, such as the burning of effigies or a strongly-worded placard?

Third, when the act says, "with intent to provoke imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and in circumstances reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace," what sort of circumstances are covered by this description? Would an anti-war protest suffice? An anti-abortion rally? A football game? National television? A Civil War reenactment? A high school graduation ceremony? A Veteran's Day Parade? Outside Arlington National Cemetery?

Fourth, in terms of the clause "[a]ny person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person and intentionally destroys or damages that flag;" which areas of the United States are not under the under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States? Also, when it comes to defining "a flag of the United States belonging to another person," will a receipt of sale be required to prove the transfer of ownership? Will it be legal to donate a flag with the intention of having it be damaged or destroyed? How can this transfer of ownership be notarized to the satisfaction of Federal (or, according to the Sense of Congress, state) authorities?

Please help me understand the practical limits on enforcement intended in the act. I am not asking these questions idly or facetiously; I fully intend on purchasing a flag of the United States using the form on your web site and burning it, but only in a Congressionally sanctioned manner, pending the passage of this act.

For if we can't kick the tires on our freedom of speech, what good is the flag, anyway?

I appreciate your time and look forward to your response.

—

Update:

I wrote the preceding letter, but thankfully did not send it into the Senator's office. I say thankfully because I didn't read the <b>Senate</b> version of the act, which includes the following
<tt>
a) Findings- Congress finds that–

(1) the flag of the United States is a unique symbol of national unity and represents the values of liberty, justice, and equality that make this Nation an example of freedom unmatched throughout the world;

(2) the Bill of Rights is a guarantee of those freedoms and should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom, a course that is regularly resorted to by authoritarian governments which fear freedom and not by free and democratic nations;

(3) <b>abuse of the flag of the United States causes <font color=red>more than pain and distress to the overwhelming majority of the American people</font> and may <font color=red>amount to fighting words or a direct threat to the physical and emotional well-being</font> of individuals at whom the threat is targeted;</b> and

(4) destruction of the flag of the United States can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.

(b) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to provide the maximum protection against the use of the flag of the United States to promote violence while respecting the liberties that it symbolizes.
</tt>

Now, why bother to put in the first two paragraphs? Because you need to lead up to the <b>clearly unconstitutional</b> second two. And I say unconstitutional for the simple reason that every time a legislature has tried to outlaw flag burning, the Supreme Court smacks them down.

By the way, who introduced the Senate bill, I hear you cry?
"Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON)," that's who. She has officially crossed the aisle, as far as I'm concerned. This is the kind of shit you might expect from a Blue Dog Democrat, not from New York.