We oppose the proposed flag desecration amendment passed by the House last week, for several reasons. First, we must remember the principle that rights are unalienable, not granted by government. The 1st Amendment protects a pre-existing right to free expression, it does not create the right. Passing an amendment that restricts that right would to some degree imply that the original right to expression is a privilege granted by the government. The proposed amendment is in essence a partial repeal of the 1st Amendment.

No one in America loathes flag-burners more than we do, but that doesn't mean the vermin don't have a right to demonstrate what seditious scum they really are. A few flag-burners aren't going to harm the country, let them show themselves out in the open.

For the best take-down of the proposed amendment, we can turn, as usual, to Mark Steyn.

...For my own part, I believe that, if someone wishes to burn a flag, he should be free to do so. In the same way, if Democrat senators want to make speeches comparing the U.S. military to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, they should be free to do so. It's always useful to know what people really believe.

....

Banning flag desecration flatters the desecrators and suggests that the flag of this great republic is a wee delicate bloom that has to be protected. It's not. It gets burned because it's strong. I'm a Canadian and one day, during the Kosovo war, I switched on the TV and there were some fellows jumping up and down in Belgrade burning the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack. Big deal, seen it a million times. But then to my astonishment, some of those excitable Serbs produced a Maple Leaf from somewhere and started torching that. Don't ask me why -- we had a small contribution to the Kosovo bombing campaign but evidently it was enough to arouse the ire of Slobo's boys. I've never been so proud to be Canadian in years. I turned the sound up to see if they were yelling ''Death to the Little Satan!'' But you can't have everything.

That's the point: A flag has to be worth torching. When a flag gets burned, that's not a sign of its weakness but of its strength. If you can't stand the heat of your burning flag, get out of the superpower business. It's the left that believes the state can regulate everyone into thought-compliance. The right should understand that the battle of ideas is won out in the open.

But there's another reason why conservatives may want to scuttle the proposed amendment, aside from the merits of the amendment itself. If a string of proposed amendments to the constitution are offered, ones offered later may suffer defeat simply because people are less open to considering them.

Getting a single amendment through the ratification process is very difficult. Getting two or three through would be much more difficult. So priorities must be considered.

We think one of the most important issues facing our nation is the protection of the institution of marriage. That will have much greater effect on our society than arresting a few smelly misfits for burning the flag.

But if the marriage amendment is the second or third one to come up, it may encounter a general public backlash against too much "tampering" with the Constitution, making it more likely to face defeat. So the flag desecration amendment may very well be a bad move strategically in addition to being a bad idea on the merits. Something else to consider.