By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Justice Department has moved to dismiss charges against an Army veteran who burned an American flag near the White House in protest of President Trump’s executive order on flag burning. Jay Carey was arrested and charged with misdemeanors related to igniting a fire and property damage, not the act of flag burning itself, which is protected by the First Amendment. His attorneys argued that the prosecution threatened constitutional rights, and the dismissal represents a vindication of these freedoms.
Read the original article here
The government’s recent move to dismiss charges against an Army veteran who burned an American flag near the White House represents a significant acknowledgment of fundamental rights. This development, while potentially surprising to some, is rooted in established legal precedent and the core principles of the First Amendment. The veteran, who served his country, is now in a position to sue the government for the alleged violation of his rights and the undue hardship he faced. This situation highlights a critical vindication for those who believe their rights have been infringed upon, and importantly, it sets a precedent for defending others who may be targeted for their viewpoints, particularly when those viewpoints are at odds with those in power.
The Constitution, though tested, has shown its resilience through the actions of this veteran. It’s a stark reminder that many individuals who proudly identify as patriots may lack a deep understanding of the very document that guarantees their freedoms. This case effectively challenges an administration’s attempt to suppress dissenting opinions, an effort that ultimately falters when confronted with constitutional protections. The idea that an executive order could supersede established law, especially in a matter as legally settled as flag burning, was indeed a peculiar turn of events, underscoring the importance of understanding the distinction between executive directives and the foundational laws of the land.
The charges initially brought against the veteran were not directly for the act of burning the flag itself, but rather for lesser offenses like igniting a fire in an unauthorized area and causing damage to park property. This tactical approach by the prosecution suggests an awareness that a direct charge of flag burning would likely fail, given the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Texas v. Johnson* in 1989, which definitively established flag burning as a protected form of symbolic speech under the First Amendment. The subsequent dismissal of these charges indicates a recognition that the case, as initially constructed, was on shaky legal ground and perhaps designed to intimidate rather than to secure a conviction based on merit.
The government’s decision to drop these charges can be seen as an attempt to find an “off-ramp” from a politically charged situation, especially considering the executive order that had been issued on the matter. This executive order, seemingly intended to make flag burning illegal with mandatory imprisonment, proved to be ineffective in overriding established constitutional law. The fact that these charges were dropped before a trial concluded is a pragmatic move, preventing a potentially embarrassing legal defeat and avoiding further judicial scrutiny of an executive action that likely overstepped its authority. It also avoids the spectacle of the government actively trying to criminalize a long-settled First Amendment right.
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the First Amendment is not merely an abstract concept but a tangible shield against government overreach, particularly when it comes to expressions of dissent. The veteran’s stated intention to “demonstrate that the First Amendment is sacred” and that no administration has the right to override constitutional rights was a bold and necessary assertion. His targeting for federal prosecution underscores a pattern where individuals are penalized for their political stances, a tactic that is fundamentally un-American. The victory in having these charges dismissed is not just for him, but for everyone who believes in the importance of free speech, even when that speech is unpopular or uncomfortable for those in power.
The notion that soldiers fight for the flag, while a sentiment often expressed, is more accurately understood as them fighting for what the flag represents: the freedoms and principles enshrined in the Constitution. These freedoms include the right to express dissent, even through acts that some may find offensive. The irony is often lost on those who champion flag reverence but simultaneously engage in actions that, by flag code standards, could be considered disrespectful, such as using the flag for commercial purposes or as part of clothing. The veteran’s actions, though controversial to some, are a direct exercise of the very freedoms our military is sworn to protect.
In essence, the government’s decision to dismiss charges against the Army veteran for burning the American flag near the White House is a victory for free speech and a reaffirmation of constitutional principles. It demonstrates that even in the face of political pressure or executive directives, the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, ultimately protects the right to protest and express oneself, even through acts that may be seen as symbolic defiance. This outcome offers a measure of vindication for the veteran and serves as a crucial reminder of the ongoing struggle to uphold and defend fundamental liberties in the face of potential infringement.