What was that first one again?
a SUIT column by Chris Jungle

Congress is back in full swing again, and it seems like a lot of representatives need to pick up a copy of the Bill of Rights. Heck, they're in Washington D.C., so they could look at the original if they don't trust reprintings. The one they continually have a problem with is the First Amendment. In case you don't know about this amendment, it's the one that says "Congress cannot take away or restrict the freedom of speech or freedom of the press." It's right there between the lines about Congress leaving religion and free assembly alone.

Even with the fairly self explanatory First Amendment, the House of Representatives passed what would be a twenty-eighth amendment to make burning the United States flag illegal. Call me crazy, but that seems to be exactly what the Constitution told them they could not do. While there may be a few folks who burn the American flag to stay warm, most people burn it to express displeasure and anger about the government or a certain policy the government is enforcing. As long as the protesters don't throw the burning flag on someone (causing harm to innocent bystanders), start an uncontainable fire, or "advocate the overthrow of the government by war," the whole exercise seems to fall under the peaceful assembly category. And, for some reason, burning a flag seems to get a lot of attention. If people who are so against flag burning would just ignore it when this circumstance occurs, I bet the protesters would move on to something else that would get people's attention.

Unfortunately, Congress can't seem to understand anything, so they spend a lot of time debating and writing and voting to make flag burning illegal. Of course, I do remember something from fifth grade history class that is pretty important: the legislative branch only makes laws (yes, even the dumb ones). It's up to the Supreme Court to say whether such an amendment is constitutional. I think even Scalia would take one look at the proposed twenty-eighth amendment and just a quick glance at the first amendment before telling Congress it must stop overstepping Constitutional boundaries. Sometimes I think the checks and balances were the best thing this government ever thought to put into action.

Congress' misunderstanding of the First Amendment is also apparent in its dealing with the National Endowment of the Arts. While it's not a direct affront to the Constitution, Congress doesn't really understand art expression very well. The House voted overwhelmingly to close the NEA's doors, and while the Senate and White House will probably save it in some form, it looks like the NEA may be much weaker or on its way out.

Those who oppose the NEA have two major reasons why they want to shut it down. First, they don't like some of the art the NEA gives money for. "We are not going to give the money to aging hippies anymore to desecrate the crucifix or do other strange things," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. when asked why he opposed the NEA. I understand not liking some art. There is honestly a lot of shock art out there which is just childish and puerile (I've always wanted to use that word in a column), but it doesn't mean most of the art the NEA supports is that way. Personally, I would not recommend Jane Austin books to anyone and could do without most of the Victorian era novels, but I don't plan on going after publishers who keep many of those books in print. All art does not have to be loved or even cared about, but it is a freedom of expression. The NEA should not lose its funding because some of the free expression is upsetting to Congress.

The other reason sited by opponents to the NEA is that it's corrupt. That most of the money goes to New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. "It's a good old boy network, and it's time to terminate that," Rep. Philip Crane, R-Ill said of the NEA. Of course, a lot of people have said that about Congress, too. Hmmm, maybe Rep. Crane is on to something. I jest. Obviously, I jest. The NEA is not perfect. There probably is a lot of favoritism going on, and not enough money is being spread around equally, but as a concept the NEA is good. And unlike other good concepts, like communism, I think the NEA can be fixed to work in real life.

If Congress wants art money to go to more areas of the country, make that a criteria. Personally, I think the NEA should do more searches for art in the middle of nowhere. Art from the deep south and high desert is just as cool (sometimes cooler) than the expression that comes from concrete jungles. The problems Congress has with the NEA could be fixed fairly easily, and the government could even tout that it encourages artistic endeavors. Always a crowd pleaser, especially around election time.

Ultimately, Congress needs to check itself and ask why it's spending its time with amendments that won't pass and attacking one of the smallest agencies funding-wise. While the NEA costs each American thirty-eight cents a year, defense spending costs each person one thousand dollars. Is it that members of Congress don't understand the parameters of their job? Or do they just have nothing to talk about? I have suggestions for other problems to work on if they need them, but we can leave that for another time.

Chris Jungle is writing up a petition that states country clubs are old white boy hangouts, and it's time to terminate those, too.

return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page