And to the Republic for which It Stands . . .
by Gordon Williams
A people or a party that is young and sober and confident and
free has no need of censors to purify its thought or stiffen its will. -President
Eisenhower
I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL DURING THE VIETNAM WAR, sweating the fact that war
still might be going on by the time I graduated. I was in opposition to
the war and in my own small way I demonstrated by refusing to say the Pledge
of Allegiance. This was in the little town of Yucca Valley, California.
Let me assure you, this small act of defiance created quite a stir. I got
into fights constantly, spit on, and the Vice Principal would give me a
swat with a large paddle every morning if I didn't say the Pledge. To me
the flag was becoming a mere piece of cloth, while what we really should
have been pledging was to protect the Constitution against enemies both
domestic and foreign. Until quite recently, it was state law that all students
must say the Pledge. That law was overturned by Jehovah's Witnesses as they
consider it a prayer that goes against their beliefs.
We were not aware of the American Civil Liberties Union at that time so
I had to travel this path alone. Fortunately, my mother stood by me through
all this. The school system expelled me, labeled me "insane,"
and placed me in a class for developmentally disabled students. While the
jury may still be out in regards to my mental health, I was getting decent
grades and didn't deserve to be in such a program. I feel they were trying
to destroy my self-confidence, which they almost did. Lucky for me the GED
program came along and I got out of that snake pit in a hurry.
When I read in the San Francisco Chronicle that Congressman Henry Gonzalez
opposed saying the Pledge in Congress, it touched a nerve and I wrote him
a letter of support stating the above facts. He wrote me back in a very
timely fashion saying in part," As I stated on the House floor, my
oath is to the Constitution of the United States. The Pledge of Allegiance
is to the flag, which is a symbol, not a foundation of government. As your
experience with the Pledge in high school painfully illustrates, blind allegiance
to such symbols closes minds, stultifies free thought, and leads people
to take hurtful actions against one another. It is encouraging to know that
there are those, such as yourself, who are still concerned about the U.S.
Constitution."
During the 1988 Presidential campaign, when George Bush attacked Michael
Dukakis for vetoing a bill mandating the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance
in Massachusetts public schools, members of the House of Representatives
began a ritual of saying the Pledge at the beginning of proceedings every
day.
Mr. Gonzalez has correctly pointed out that we should be making an oath
to the Constitution, the law of the land, not to the flag, a mere symbol.
When an elected official is sworn in, it should be on a copy of the Constitution
and not on the Bible, as that is a religious icon and there is supposed
to be a clear separation of church and state in this country. This separation
was not put into the Constitution to discriminate against anyone's religious
views, but to protect them and prevent us from having a state religion.
So when the Pledge says, "One nation under God," I am opposed
to it, not because of any opposition to churches or anyone's belief system.
It's like the old Chinese saying, "One thousand monks, one thousand
religions," and it hold very true today. To one person God might be
an omnipresent being calling all the shots, while to me God (for lack of
a better term) is an all-inclusive universe. We have the right to recognize
this concept in any manner we choose. So saying the Pledge is the government's
way of forcing its view of God on us. The Pledge was not around until the
McCarthy era. Gonzalez was kind enough to send me a copy of the address
he made (on flag day). He focused on two issues: the Pledge and the Federal
Reserve System. Here is what he said about the Pledge:
"[W}e have disengaged from our Constitution. In fact, nothing is sadder
than to see the herd instinct in taking the Pledge of Allegiance here in
the House of Representatives. What is that Pledge? That Pledge was not around
until just three, three-and-half , or four decades ago. Here we are, we
have taken an oath, and that oath is to the Constitution, not to the flag.
The flag is a symbol. Here we are like a good little herd, reminiscent of
the Hitlerian period: Sig heil, sig heil.
'That sounds terrible and may be it sounds like it is erratic, but that
is the way I feel and think. It is sad when we forget the main oath . .
. is to protect and uphold the Constitution against all enemies, domestic
as well as foreign.
'The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and all people,
equally in war and peace, and comes with the shield of its protection to
all classes of men at all times and under all circumstances. So we had one
president saying, "No, this so-called attempt by Congress to limit
the power to make war by one individual, the President, like the old kings,
is unconstitutional." When does a president, who takes an oath to faithfully,
faithfully, faithfully administer the laws, pick the laws that he thinks
are Constitutional and which he should obey and should not? Yet we had that
just recently. All through my term here, during the '60s and the Vietnam
period, I took the House floor. There was no TV or anything, but it is on
record. I charged that presidents did not have, and that included a friend
and a neighbor from Texas, President Lyndon Johnson, did not have the power
to compel an unwilling American and send him out of the United States to
fight in an undeclared war, not declared by Congress, as one of the latest
notices we have coming from Somalia.
'But I have a letter that I placed in the record from President Clinton.
I had written him about my concern of invoking the War Powers Limitation
Act, not only in Somalia but in the so-called Eastern Europe where the idea
is that American troops are not involved, but they are. They are in an area
of potential hostility. It does not mean hostility necessarily against,
at this moment, our troops, but in areas where the hostility is there.
'I had a hand in drafting that law, even though I knew it was limited in
1973-74. But no President has had too much respect. In fact, President Clinton's
reply to me was the first one from any President.
'So I am going to have to raise that reply now in view of what is happening
in Somalia. We were under the impression that our intent was working under
the aegis and the flag of the United Nations. Yet it looks as if all the
fighting is being done by Americans, and what is worse, killing Somalia
civilians by Americans. That, I think, needs restructuring. 'But this notion
that Judge Davis so much warned again, that given exigencies, got lost during
WW II, and you had these eminent social and political scientists saying,
"Well, you know the world, and with the advent of the atom bomb, things
have to be decided so quickly, we may have to think of some device known
as Constitutional dictatorship." Well, that is a contradiction in terms
right there.
'The argument of tyrants, "necessity"; the creed of slaves, "necessity,"
always, always. "I have got to do this. I have got to have this power
because of this great necessity. " But Judge Davis is saying, "Oh,
no, you don't, the Constitution prevails, not just in peace time but in
war time as well."
The furor that has been raised due to Rep. Gonzalez' special order speech
wasn't about the Pledge of Allegiance. I personally feel that he is a patriot.
What he was trying to point out is that we can't allow ourselves to follow
blindly while our leaders scuttle our own ship. Did anyone notice that George
Bush tried to bring up a bill making it illegal to burn the flag just as
his son was about to be indicted in the S&L scandal?
So today we have a challenge, and that is to make this a better nation.
We dare not be complacent, we can't be blinded by parades, pledges, and
fireworks on the Fourth of July, then go home and pat ourselves on the back
and say well done. "We are disengaged from the Constitution and are
falling prey to the herd instinct," as Mr. Gonzalez put it. What I
felt he was trying to say is that we must question authority. If we do not,
then the Constitution is merely a scrap of velum. That is our shared responsibility,
to protect and defend the Constitution, the law of the land in this country.
Without it we are finished as a country, and we will be like a herd being
led into the ovens. The flag is a piece of cloth, a mere symbol of our country.
Mr. Gonzalez is trying to get things into perspective for us.