by JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:34 P.M. EDT

Great Moments in Higher Education
The U.S. Senate is considering an amendment to the Constitution that would exclude the desecration of the flag from the First Amendment's free-speech protections, effectively overturning the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that held burning the flag to be a form of "symbolic speech." Sixty senators have signed on as sponsors, with 67 needed to propose the amendment. The House approved it last year, 286-130, so an affirmative Senate vote would send it to the states, 38 of whose legislatures would have to ratify it.

Weighing in against the proposed amendment, in an op-ed for the Charlotte Observer, is Dr. Susan Roberts:

Flag burning was thrust into the public eye following an arrest of a young man during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. The man identified himself as a member of a group calling itself the Revolutionary Youth Brigade. He was charged with a violation of the Texas Desecration of Venerated Objects statute.

In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an appellate court decision that the man was within his First Amendment rights. Wasting no time, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act just months after the ruling. Wasting no time, the Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act was inconsistent with First Amendment freedoms and thus unconstitutional.

It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would now uphold an amendment prohibiting flag burning, even with the change in the court's composition.

It may seem unlikely that the Supreme Court would uphold a statute prohibiting flag burning (and indeed, in 1990's U.S. v. Eichman it overturned the federal Flag Protection Act of 1989). That's why Congress is considering a constitutional amendment, which the court couldn't overturn.

It's embarrassing enough that Dr. Roberts's error got past the editors of the Observer, but it's even worse that she made such a goof in the first place. For she is not a real doctor but a professor of political science, at North Carolina's Davidson College, where she teaches such courses as The Legislative Process (POL 211) and The Politics of Feminism (POL 215).

It is troubling indeed to think that the political scientists of tomorrow are being taught by people who lack basic knowledge about the workings of American government.

Burned Out
No doubt you are dying to know where this column stands on the flag-desecration amendment. The answer is, we are against it. Our view is that the Supreme Court got it right in 1989: Insofar as desecrating the flag is an act of political expression, it is protected by the First Amendment. (The objection that it isn't "speech" is overly literal. What we're doing now--causing pixels to form meaningful patterns on thousands of computer screens--isn't exactly speech either, but we like to think the First Amendment protects it from government interference.)

Burning the flag is a stupid and ugly act, but there is something lovely and enlightened about a regime that tolerates it in the name of freedom. And of course it has the added benefit of making it easier to spot the idiots.

That said, the amendment would be essentially harmless, and we're awfully embarrassed by the overwrought rhetoric of some of its opponents, such as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter:

My father, Jim Alter, . . . flew 33 harrowing missions over Nazi Germany during World War II. My father is not just a veteran who by all odds should not have survived. He is a true patriot. His litmus test is the proposal to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, which will come up for a vote next week in the U.S. Senate. For dad--and me--any member of Congress who supports amending the Bill of Rights for the first time in the history of this country for a nonproblem like flag burning is showing serious disrespect for our Constitution and for the values for which brave Americans gave their lives. . . .

Note: The other countries that have banned flag burning include Cuba, China, Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

The last time the Senate considered a flag-desecration amendment, in 2000, the vote was 63-37 in favor, four votes short of the needed 67. Among the senators voting "aye" was Max Cleland of Georgia. Thus Jon Alter not only is questioning the patriotism of a crippled Vietnam War hero; he actually has the effrontery to compare Cleland to Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile, the editorialists at the New York Times, who prove each day that monkeys with typewriters cannot produce the works of Shakespeare, also disapprove:

With the Fourth of July fast approaching, Senate Republicans are holding a barbecue. Unfortunately, instead of grilling hot dogs and hamburgers, they are trying to torch a hole in the First Amendment's free speech guarantee by passing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow federal and state authorities to punish flag-burning.

Some things should be out of bounds even in a competitive election year. Messing with the Constitution is one of them.

But the ability to amend the Constitution is part of the Constitution. "Messing with the Constitution" also ended slavery, gave blacks and women the vote, and repealed Prohibition. (OK, that last one is a wash.)

In fact, if the First Congress had refrained from "messing with the Constitution" by proposing the Bill of Rights, there would be no First Amendment. Forget flag-burning; if the Times were true to its principles, it would be against free speech altogether!

Ward Off
The number of crackpot college professors in America is about to decline by one. That's not a statistically significant number, to be sure, but we'll take good news where we can get it--in this case from the Denver Post:

The University of Colorado at Boulder's chancellor notified professor Ward Churchill on Monday that he intends to fire him, capping a 15-month investigation that began in the wake of Churchill's notorious essay comparing victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to a Nazi.

Churchill, who was found to have plagiarized, falsified and fabricated in his research, was relieved of his duties by interim chancellor Phil DiStefano, but he will stay on the CU payroll until the termination is final. . . .

Churchill will request a hearing before the six-member privilege and tenure committee, but he doesn't expect an outcome in his favor, said his attorney, David Lane.

When the last "rubber stamp comes down" on Churchill's termination, Lane will file a federal lawsuit accusing CU of retaliating against the professor for comments that were protected by the First Amendment, he said.

"They've been looking for a year and a half for enough window dressing so that when they fire him in retaliation for his speech, it will have the appearance of legitimacy," Lane said.

Well, they got Al Capone for tax evasion, didn't they? The chancellor's statement and other documents are here.

A Letter From Sen. Skedaddle
John Kerry* writes to solicit donations for three Democratic Senate candidates: Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and incumbent Maria Cantwell of Washington:

President Bush will be sneaking into St. Louis tomorrow to raise money for Republican Senator Jim Talent. If it's like most GOP fundraising featuring Bush and Cheney these days, it will be a "cut and run" affair.

Republican candidates ask high dollar supporters (tomorrow's event is at the Ritz-Carlton) to cut big checks before they run from being caught in the public eye with the President or Vice President.

Nice job keeping the phrase "cut and run" in the minds of voters. We'd like to suggest a response for the Republicans: "Our plan is not 'cut and run.' Their plan is 'muse and lose.' "

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served 120 days in Vietnam and promised 513 days ago to release his military records.

All the Nudes That's Fit to Print
On May 10, we noted that Brad Blanton, who was seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, was running into trouble because he had to explain--well, we'll let Blanton finish the thought: "People are concerned because I have run workshop groups involving nudity, used profanity in my books, have a comedy routine about establishing a new religion, 'Futilitarianism,' and have been arrested a number of times."

Yesterday we received this email from reader Steven Kush:

As one who reads your column and Dr. Brad Blanton's new campaign manager, I couldn't help noticing and reading (with interest) your Best of the Web for May 10, 2006, "For Bush critics, the war is all about him. Plus will Brad Blanton bring nudity to C-Span?"

Granted, this email comes somewhat late, but, as I stated, I am Dr. Blanton's new campaign manager. Indeed, had I been here at the time it was published I would have contacted you then. That said, the answer to the question is, obviously, no, Brad Blanton will not bring nudity to C-Span nor anywhere else for that matter.

In fact, the whole nudity issue was answered in a recent column on the editorial page of the Culpeper Star-Exponent, "In Defense of My Candidacy: Don't let editorial attacks and Dempublicrats win the day." You can read it here.

In that column Dr. Blanton writes, "Of course, Republicans would certainly, in the course of a campaign, mention the role of nudity in my work. It is not 'nude psychotherapy' by the way, that is a distortion started by a reporter at another publication. Voters have a right to know about this, and I have nothing to hide."

"In fact, nudity is an important part of the leadership seminars I use to teach business and community leaders about how to distinguish between noticing and thinking. Some very talented and successful people pay well to attend these sessions, and nothing out of the ordinary occurs during them except some self-discovery and awareness."

He then goes on to explain that his book "The Truthtellers" documents the effectiveness of his seminars in the words of participants.

The fact is, this nudity "issue" was blown way out of proportion and the campaign has taken the proper steps to set the record straight. Hopefully, you will read the above referenced column to gain a complete understanding of the "issue."

As Blanton's reference to "Dempublicrats" suggests, he did not win the Democratic nomination, but he's still running as an independent. He must be hoping residents of Virginia's Seventh District aren't clothed-minded.

Profiles in Courage
"Miller Takes a Stand on Iraq War Resolution with an Unprecedented 'Present' Vote"--headline, press release, office of Rep. Brad Miller (D., N.C.), June 15

40 Billion Pennies
From an Associated Press report on a Bill Clinton speech in South Kingstown, R.I.:

Clinton . . . objected to the president's efforts to permanently repeal the estate tax. An estate tax on the richest one percent of Americans could raise $25 million to $40 million a year, enough to wipeout [sic] extreme poverty around the globe in a decade.

Hmm, let's assume the take from the death tax is at the high end of Clinton's estimate, or $400 million in a decade. How close would this come to wiping out extreme poverty? According to NetAid.org:

Over 1 billion people--1 in 6 people around the world--live in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1 a day.

Let's assume they all live on 99 cents a day, and thus need only 1 cent a day to lift them out of extreme poverty. That means wiping out extreme poverty world-wide would require a billion cents, or $10 million, a day--so that a decade's worth of death-tax revenues would alleviate extreme poverty for just under six weeks--not counting the administrative expense of distributing those 40 billion pennies.

Now, if the taxman could get his hands on Warren Buffett's estate . . .

It's Bush's Fault!
"A family home in Canada will be deliberately destroyed by scientists to understand how buildings react to hurricane force winds."--BBC Web site, June 26

Not Till 2009, Though
"Demotion Mulled for Storm Starter"--headline, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 27

What Would We Do Without Studies?
"How Is Dingo Urine Gathered? Carefully, Study Says"--headline, Reuters, June 27

For Everyone Else, It's 100 in 100
"Shuttle Crew Faces 1-in-100 Chance of Dying"--headline, CNN.com, June 27

A Little Tea Pot
"British health food shops will soon be offering customers iced cannabis tea, its Swiss distributor said. Sold under the label 'C-Ice Swiss Cannabis Ice Tea,' the beverage contains five percent of hemp flower syrup and a tiny (0.0015 percent) quantity of THC, the active ingredient of marijuana."--Agence France-Presse, June 26

The Homicide Squad Is Overworked
"Manila Cops Insist on Legitimate Killings"--headline, Manila (Philippines) Standard, June 27

Ex-Teachers Did It With Class
"Workers Do It 'Under Duress' "--headline, Detroit Free Press, June 27

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "Klinsmann: No Interest in Taking Over U.S."--headline, FoxSports.com, June 26
  
  
• "Rap Mogul's Boycott of Cristal Champagne Unlikely to Hurt Brand"--headline, Advertising Age, June 27
  
  
• "Statistics Canada Collecting Late Census Forms"--headline, Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Web site, June 26

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That
"The probability of a man being gay rises the more older brothers he has, a finding that adds weight to idea sexual orientation could be influenced in the womb," reports the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

In case anyone noticed us watching the parade on Sunday, this seems a good time to point out that our younger brother fathered a child last month, and we're even less likely to be gay than he is.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Richard Osborne, Jim Paine, Shawn DeMers, Ed Lasky, Edward Tannen, Brendan Schulman, Greg Lindenberg, David Weaver, Robert Butchko, Kevin Taylor, Mark Wilson, Lynne Cole, C.E. Dobkin, Mike Urban, Ben Pearce, Bill Bish, John Williamson, Rusty Guinn, Peter Strnad, Daniel Foty, Julie Beck, Mark Taylor, Robert Lesley and Stephen Wyse. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: The Supreme Court declines to repeal the First Amendment--though only by 6-3.
• Rebiya Kadeer: Why Beijing beat and jailed my sons.
• Brian Carney: A dissonant note of moral equivalence at an exhibit on communist horrors.