n that this constitutional amendment might “irreparably damage the separation of powers that has protected our constitutional freedoms throughout history...because judges insulated from public pressure can best evaluate the claims of unpopular minorities.” Kennedy is saying here that since Congress can be greatly influenced by special interest groups, such as the Citizens’ Flag Alliance, it is the responsibility of the judiciary branch of government to objectively rule as to what is truly constitutional. If the Senate amends the Bill of Rights for the first time in history by passing the Flag Protection Amendment, who knows where they would stop. “Every nation in the world has a flag, and many of them, including some democracies, have laws against desecrating their flag. No other nation has a Bill of Rights” (Levy 219). All of the proponents for the Eichman decision who were also against the Flag Protection Amendment used very logical, well-structured arguments, while those dissenting and in support of the “amendment to an amendment” use mostly emotional arguments and focus on the respect owed to all those who have died in the military protecting the nation. These in the latter group seem usually to be associated with the military themselves (e.g. Major General Patrick H. Brady is the Board Chairman of the Citizens’ Flag Alliance). Justice Stevens argued that flag-burning was not an acceptable form of expression because people could convey their views by other means; he seems to have failed to realize, however, that it is not the right of the government to limit one to a certain means of voicing his or her opinions. Flag burning is a form of protest which rarely occurs and which does little but offend others. Perhaps a law such as the Flag Protection Act, while unconstitutional, is permissible as a means of silencing organization such as the CFA, but an amendment to our Bill of Rights is ...
