American Legion wants to know John's position on flag burning.

The following was received from the American Legion.

From: Brian Higbee
To: Internet Mail::[source@columbus.rr.com];
Internet Mail::["'publicity@lpo.org'" ]

Subject: Mr. McAlister's position on a constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from physical desecration

Date: 1/19/00 4:05 PM

Mr. McAlister,

I e-mailed you on January 11th seeking your views on the Constitutional Amendment to protect the American flag against physical desecration. I must say at the outset that The American Legion does not endorse candidates, I are simply trying to get information, not determine the merits of specific candidates.

I am preparing to send the information I have obtained to The American Legion's Department of Ohio. If you would like to be on the record with your views on this important subject, I would greatly appreciate it if you could answer a few questions.

The American Legion and The Citizens Flag Alliance, Inc. Congressional Candidate Questionnaire.

Subject: Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment The American Legion has joined a growing list of more than 140 grassroots, community-based organizations across America to form the Citizens Flag Alliance, Inc.(CFA). The objective of this coalition is to secure a constitutional amendment (must be ratified by 2/3 of the states after passage in Congress) that will allow Congress to protect, by law, the Flag of the United States if Congress chooses to do that.

Background: In 1989 the US Supreme Court declared flag burning to be appropriate expression within the free speech provisions of the First Amendment, and in effect struck down flag protection laws in 48 states and the District of Columbia (Texas v. Johnson).

Reacting to the Court's ruling, The American Legion and the CFA have petitioned for a constitutional amendment that specifically addresses physical destruction. Forty-nine state legislatures have, by concurrent resolutions, asked Congress to propose this amendment and send it to the states for ratification. In 1995, 1997, and 1999, the House of Representatives passed the amendment, on each occasion handily exceeding the two-thirds required. It was narrowly defeated in the Senate in the 104th Congress, and did not reach the floor before close of the 105th. Action is pending in the 106th.

National Gallup polls taken over a period of ten years, demonstrate that Americans believe that they and not the Supreme Court, should have the last word in protecting America's flag from physical desecration. As an issue of concern to most Americans, your position on flag protection is important and will be communicated to CFA member organizations in your state.

The full text of the proposed constitutional amendment is:

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling?

A. YES.

Question 2: When elected to the 107th Congress, will you support or oppose the proposed constitutional amendment as set out above?

A. OPPOSE.

Question 3: When elected, will you cosponsor the flag protection amendment?

A. NO.

Question 4: Have you made a public statement in support or in opposition to a flag protection constitutional amendment?

A. No, but I will be posting a statement (posted 1-21-00) on my website at www.JohnForUSSenate.com. Check back and you will see your email posted there with my answers to your questions.

Q. In addition, I would also like to ask if you have served in the armed forces and are you a member of any veterans' organization(s).

A. Yes. I was in the Army. I am a social member of V.F.W. Post 2374 in Columbus where my brother Joe is a past Post Commander.

Note: To better understand the concerns some Members of Congress hold for this issue, we invite your opinion on the matter of constitutional protection for the Flag of the United States.

John’s opinion on this issue:

I do not defend flag desecration but I do defend the right to desecrate the flag, offensive as the exercise of that right may be to so many Americans. I agree with Kit Hinricks, an ex-marine and rabid opponent of the pending flag burning amendment. "You can't force people to respect the flag," says Hinrichs, a flag collector with a personal collection of over 2,500 American flag items. He is a part of Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights, a group of about 400 veterans who oppose the measure on First Amendment grounds.

The First Amendment center reports that Hinrichs is hardly alone among his countrymen. A new poll says that just a slim majority of Americans favor the amendment, not the massive numbers suggested by flag burning opponents. Support drops below 50 percent when respondents are told that the amendment would be the first alteration to the First Amendment ever.

Roger Pilon, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, testified against the proposed amendment in March/99. (Full testimony available at: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp032399.html) In that testimony he said, "flag desecration of a kind that this amendment would authorize Congress to prohibit is political expression and, second, that political expression is precisely what the Framers wanted most to protect when they drafted the First Amendment. In a pair of cases decided in 1989 and 1990--involving first a state, then a federal statute--the United States Supreme Court said as much, which is why those who want to prohibit people from engaging in such acts have resorted to a constitutional amendment--an amendment that would, for the first time in over 200 years, amend the First Amendment. That alone should give pause."

I agree completely with Roger's testimony. Members of your organization more than others, have seen the stupid acts that politicians and bureaucrats have committed in the name of the flag of the United States -- Viet Nam, perhaps the most glaring. If politicians ever committed this nation to another such stupid act of war, I would be one of the first ones to be burning the flag to show those politicians that it is they who desecrate our flag by dishonoring its history and using it for political gain. (Bombing the Sudan comes to mind.)

We should be electing people to Congress to remind us of the limits on the Constitution when we as citizens forget.

While I don't condone anyone desecrating the flag of the United States and everything it stands for, I see the purpose of the Constitution as one of protecting a person's right to life, liberty and property -- not for shaping behavior when that behavior, no matter how despicable, does not threaten anyone else's life, liberty or property.

Certainly your cause is heartfelt but another person's actions should be judged, ostracized, deplored, boycotted, castigated, written about, prejudiced and shamed but never prosecuted, fined or jailed just because the "majority" disapprove.

One of the greatest rights in the world is the right to be wrong. That's what freedom means to me and I uphold another person's right to be wrong as well, even if it means burning the flag -- as long as that flag is not my property or your property.

If this country continues to go in the direction of ever more laws to control people's behavior, intrusion on the Bill of Rights (as the war on drugs has done) spending obscene amounts of money on ridiculous laws, regulations, pork barrel Departments of the federal government, foreign wars (Bosnia comes to mind), electing corrupt public officials, militarizing our police departments, creating the world's largest national debt, creating a tax code that makes criminals out of everyone, criminalizing guns, work and inanimate objects, then there will come a time when people will burn the flag because America will no longer exist as you and I knew it. For those who are burning the flag today, perhaps America no longer meets their ideals of what the flag is supposed to stand for. Perhaps in their opinion, America has already betrayed it's trust in freedom.

We have a government that is run by a monopoly of power with Democrats and Republicans simply forming two separate wings of a "status quo party." When 60% of the people don't vote in an election they may just be saying "none of the above."

That's why my campaign exists. It says to the people of Ohio that if they vote for the same old career politicians of the Democrats and Republicans, they will continue to get bigger government. I don't believe bigger government is what we need. Please see my website on "Why is John a candidate?" You will see that I offer people a clear choice between the career politicians of the "Republicrats" and a citizen politician of the Libertarian Party.

I'd like to see as much passion and effort put into phasing out the income tax as I see on this flag issue. The burning of a flag will not destroy this country, but the policies and practices I see of today's government will.

For freedoms lost see "Amerika, Amerika" by Claire Wolfe at:http://www.egroups.com/group/ice-bucket/831.html?She lists 10 categories of current laws that would make almost anyone want to burn the flag in protest of a government and bureaucracy run amuck as America heads toward a police state.

The American Legion exists to honor the lives of people who have paid the ultimate price for freedom, as they knew and believed what America stood for, i.e., personal freedom and responsibility, community and goodwill toward neighbors. If those who have passed on could come back today and see the freedoms we have lost in the name of "security" or political correctness s, I'm sure some of them would see that we have already dishonored the flag that represented their country.

Thanks for the offer to call you. I may just do that in the near future, if you would like to talk in person. You may also call me anytime.

Regards,

John McAlister
www.JohnForUSSenate.com
Columbus, OH
614-898-0015