City Beats Anti-Flag Burning Order

An order that would have asked Congress to propose an anti-flag-burning amendment to the Constitution was defeated 5 to 4 at Monday night's City Council meeting.

Councillors Walter J. Sullivan and Sheila T. Russell proposed the resolution, which stated that "the law as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court no longer accords to the stars and strips that reverence, respect and dignity befitting that most noble experiment of a nation-state."

The order caused heated debate among the councillors, with some calling it an attempt to violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. "While I very much respect the flag...I think in terms of desecration of the flag there are not many people in this country at this time who choose to do that," Councillor Jonathan S. Myers said, "but for those who do, I think that's one of the things this country has fought long and hard for."

But Councillor William H. Walsh, who voted for the order along with Russell, Sullivan and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey Jr., called the argument for the amendment "a genuine issue of loving one's country and loving one's flag."

The conflict was reminiscent of the group's February 11 meeting, when it debated and ultimately amended an order which would have requested anti-war protesters not to demonstrate for fear of hurting the morale of troops stationed in the Gulf.

"The First Amendment is something l won't walk away from, because it's a slippery slope," said City Councillor Edward N. Cyr.

The order was the only item on which the council took action Monday night, because Councillors Walsh and Russell exercised their right to table the group's remaining remaining business for one week. Since Myers had tabled the flag order the at the previous meeting, it could not be tabled again.