The slow death of the flag-burning amendment in the House was testimony to the resolve of representatives to protect the Constitution, but it was a greater victory for the men who crafted a written model to structure and guide a young government.

The drafters of the United States Constitution not only provided their political descendants with an operating manual for a republic, they also built into its provisions safeguards to protect the integrity of the document.

The flag debate might have concluded much differently had the founders of this country allowed our basic document of government to be amended far easier, by a simple majority vote.

Instead, they made the amending process a major political challenge. Not only did the flag-burning amendment require a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, but if it had passed both bodies, it still would have required approval by 38 of the 50 states.

This demanding series of obstacles is there for a reason. It is a brake on legislators who might act in passion and haste, forcing the nation to repent at its leisure.

The most succinct appraisal of this issue was rendered by Stanley Chauvin Jr., president of the American Bar Association, who recently reiterated the ABA’s adamant opposition to the flag-burning amendment, observing:

“As a symbol, the flag is important, but not more important than the ideals of freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.”

That kind of reasoning would have carried the day in Philadelphia, nearly 200 years ago.