Bill Bennett: “The Salt Lake Tribune editorial makes this comment: If respect for something has to be required by law, then it isn't…”

“The Salt Lake Tribune editorial makes this comment: If respect for something has to be required by law, then it isn't respect. If regard for a symbol of freedom has to be imposed by carving a hole out of our basic charter of rights, then it isn't freedom. And it concludes with this sentence: The rare act of torching an American flag is one of two things: pointless or meaningful. If it is pointless, the worst it could be called is vandalism, and should be treated as such. If it is meaningful, even full of meaning we don't like, then it is and must remain constitutionally protected expression. Now turning to the editorial from the Deseret Morning News, the lead paragraph there says: Once again, the House of Representatives has passed a constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from desecration. This is an annual event almost as predictable as the swallows returning to Capistrano. So, too, is the Senate's annual ritual of not passing it. They conclude with this comment which I am happy to include in the record because it says nice things about me. We always like comments that do that. It says: One of the Senate votes against it belongs to Utah Senator Bob Bennett, who normally agrees with much that Senator Hatch supports. He has said he is unwilling to overturn 200 years of tradition in regard to the First Amendment. He's right. The Constitution is no place for feel-good amendments that do nothing but restrict freedoms. Finally, Mr.…”