"Flag desecration is not a constitutional issue for the courts. It is a political one that belongs to the people"
About this Quote
“Flag desecration” is one of those phrases engineered to smuggle outrage into policy. Larry Craig’s line tries to do two things at once: wrap himself in populist modesty (“not for the courts”) while quietly narrowing what the Constitution is allowed to protect. The specific intent is legislative cover. If you can reframe a First Amendment fight as mere “politics,” you make restrictions sound like democratic housekeeping rather than state punishment for symbolic dissent.
The subtext is sharper: courts are being cast as aloof elites who thwart “the people,” a familiar move when a majority wants to discipline a minority’s expression. It’s also a rhetorical judo flip. The flag, in First Amendment doctrine, often functions as the ultimate protected symbol because the state’s impulse to sanctify it is exactly what free speech restrains. Craig’s formulation implies the opposite: that the flag’s meaning is owned collectively, and therefore the collective can police it.
Context matters. This comes out of the long aftermath of Texas v. Johnson (1989) and U.S. v. Eichman (1990), when the Supreme Court held flag burning to be protected expression and politicians began chasing constitutional amendments and flag-protection laws as ready-made culture-war fuel. Craig’s claim that the issue “belongs to the people” isn’t neutral deference; it’s an invitation to majoritarian enforcement of patriotism. The irony is that constitutional rights are designed precisely for the moments when “the people” are most tempted to punish unpopular speech.
The subtext is sharper: courts are being cast as aloof elites who thwart “the people,” a familiar move when a majority wants to discipline a minority’s expression. It’s also a rhetorical judo flip. The flag, in First Amendment doctrine, often functions as the ultimate protected symbol because the state’s impulse to sanctify it is exactly what free speech restrains. Craig’s formulation implies the opposite: that the flag’s meaning is owned collectively, and therefore the collective can police it.
Context matters. This comes out of the long aftermath of Texas v. Johnson (1989) and U.S. v. Eichman (1990), when the Supreme Court held flag burning to be protected expression and politicians began chasing constitutional amendments and flag-protection laws as ready-made culture-war fuel. Craig’s claim that the issue “belongs to the people” isn’t neutral deference; it’s an invitation to majoritarian enforcement of patriotism. The irony is that constitutional rights are designed precisely for the moments when “the people” are most tempted to punish unpopular speech.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|
More Quotes by Larry
Add to List
