George Stephanopoulos uncovers something shocking about the Flag Burning vote of the Senator from California. Details below the fold:
Dingbat is a denigrating but endearing term, usually applied to women, (sorry) who are benignly confused. Edith Bunker was the classic, with those of a certain age still remembering with great fondness Gracy Allen's absurd misunderstandings that George Burns handled with hilarious affection.
But Feinstein's dingbatness has consequences that are not endearing, rather they are frightening. While the Flag Desecration amendment may seem to pale in comparison to the substantive issues that are being decided each day in congress and the courts, It does have meaning. It defines what kind of country we are. Read my previous diary "Flag Consecration Amendment" for expansion of this thought.
Feinstein was questioned about this by George Stephanopoulos Sunday, but the transcript of this part of the interview seems missing from the "This Week" web site. I recorded it and transcribe it below:
Stephanopoulos opened with, "Senator, you were one of the democrats who supported the flag burning amendment that was just rejected by a single vote. Justice Brennen had this to say when it appeared before the court last time: ( GS read and showed on the screen the full quote ending with,) "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." He then asked Feinstein, "What is wrong with Justice Brennen's argument?"
Her answer did not address Brennen's statement, but was the standard expression of adoration of the flag, rejecting the view that defiling it was protected speech, instead being conduct. She went on as follows:
I do not believe what we were going to pass was flag burning, essentially what it said is that the congress would have the right to determine the protocols of the flag...... the only way was to go to the people (through this amendment process) to express whether they wanted some protocols surrounding the flag, and I think that should take place.
What makes this stunning is that she was defending her vote for a constitutional amendment that was never proposed, and certainly not the one she voted for. She was describing, in her very own words, not approval of laws against flag burning, the classic example of the "desecration" specifically and exclusively prohibited by the proposed amendment, but rather an amendment that would have allowed congressional imposition of "protocols."
Based on her words of this interview, she would allow congress to mandate the details of how and when the flag is flown, and perhaps just how individuals should react to this protected flag. Her amendment is both more trivial and the same time more open ended and expansive than the limited words of the actual amendment. The amendment she described would have been rejected by even the most rabid right wing Republican. (I hope)
Edith Bunker was lovable because her lack of understanding of complex issues was a part of her charm. She was a warn and loving person whose worst sin would be to get Archey upset. Diane Feinstein has been given the mantle of protector of our most precious document, the very blueprint of our unique democratic experiment.
Her lack of understanding of the meaning of an amendment to this document that with her support came a vote away from passing is unforgivable.