5 Steps to a 5 AP English Language 2019

Practice Exam 2 ❮ 235

1

2

3

4

5

Student A

Some were shocked. Others were indifferent. Still others were proud. What event

could cause such an array of emotions in so many different people? The burning of the

American flag. However, what seems to lead to even more controversy than the actual

burning of the flag is the legal ramifications of flag-burning—specifically, whether

or not it should be banned by the Constitution. Politicians in favor of such a law are

proposing a one-sentence amendment to the First Amendment to target the “desecration”

of the flag. But such an amendment is just not necessary.

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist vehemently protested the burning

of the flag, stating, “Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost

mystical reverence.” Indeed, quite true is that declaration, which matches the regard—in

the forms of laws which criminalize public flag-burning—of 48 states to such a symbol

(Source E). And, of course, the ultimate reflection of this point of view exists in the

very amendment causing such ruckus, which states, “The Congress shall have power to

prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States” (Source B).

However, if Americans are in such cohesive opinion of flag-burning, or so it would

seem, why are some still setting fire to the beloved stars and stripes? Once again, we

return to the respected Chief Justice Rehnquist, who also states that “[The flag] does not

represent any particular political philosophy” (Source E). In a sense, this makes the flag

mutable enough to represent all things politically American, such as government officials

or even government policy. Such is the reasoning that the Los Angeles Times justified the

burning of the flag—as “attacks on government and public officials” (Source F). But,

other than a crowd’s “distaste” at the politicians of America, another, more practical

explanation rights the burning of the flag: disposing it. According to Todd Lindberg,

the Boy Scout manual delineates a “ceremony” for getting the flag “decommissioned

properly. So the symbolic content is always present” (Source I). Such a respectful gesture

to a flag that has served its days seems almost shameful to ban.

Then, of course, arises the issue of freedom of speech. An opinion of Senator

McConnell of Kentucky finds that, “Placing a no-flag-burning asterisk next to the

amendment’s sweeping guarantee of free speech . . . could invite amendments to ban

other sorts of speech” (Source F). Such a thought seems a little flawed in the snowball-

down-a-hill way, but the adage “power corrupts,” no matter how trite, might still give

the idea enough fuel to scorch. However, Mr. Lindberg of the Washington Times proved

the hypocrisy of such an amendment best. A ban on “the symbol of the freedom to

burn, baby, burn,” leaves a paradoxical taste in anyone’s mouth. Limiting the freedom to

destroy freedom means, to Mr. Lindberg and many others, “you have no freedom.”

But “burn, baby, burn” doesn’t exactly sound like a right “of the people peaceably

to assemble,” as stated in the First Amendment of the Constitution (Source A). Fire is

hardly a symbol of peace, and one could almost make the argument that burning the

flag is equivalent to yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater (almost, but not in the landmark