The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-89-0595j-89-105 1/11/89 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION STRONGLY URGING AND SUPPORTING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, AS PROPOSED BY PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH* THAT WOULD NEGATE THE EFFECT OF THE RECENT DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND WHICH WILL EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT THE DESECRATION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE HEREIN DESIGNATED OFFICIALS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Miami City Commission hereby strongly urges and supports a Constitutional Amendment, as proposed by President George Bush, that would negate the effect of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court and which will expressly prohibit the desecration of the Flag of the United _ States of America. Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Resolution to President George Bush; Vice - President Dan Quayle; U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Senator George Mitchell; Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Representative Thomas S. Foley; Senator Bob Graham; Senator Connie Mack; Representative Dante Fascell; Representative William Lehman; and to all Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July , 1969. XAVTER L. S ARE2, MA. OR Y. _ s #. AT kHIRAI + CITY CLERK r Juk .1959 s f a s RpOWTION 77!;xz- Eft 2 _ u PIMPARED AND APPROVED SY : ROBERT F. CLARK AS91STANT CtTy ATTORNEY LEGISLATION/SPECIAL PROTECTS DlV#S#ON CH19P APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS. MO-qUETL., FERN DEZ CITY ATTORNEY RFC! BSSsM1i�b 4 to M0116fAbl+e M&Vbt and Membets of the City dbfftt §s l tin iw tRov Cesar W , bd t City Manaw DATE July 13, 1999 SURACT July 13, 10$0 City CbMM 1 §s i Oh Agenda RF=ERENCES ENCLOSURES Please be advised that items CA-3, CA=-5, CA-23, CA-31, CA-42 CA- 46 and 59 Of the City Commisslon agenda of July 13, 1989�have been withdrawn. HONORABLE MEMBERS DATE: December 15, 1989 FILL Or THE CITY COMMISSION subject: Response to city of Miami Resolution 80-595 FROM TREFERENCES: City Clerk ENCLOSURES: Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter from President Bush's Special Assistant in answer to the City Commission Resolution 89-595 (on the desecration of the U-Si, flag), passed and adopted on July 13, 1989, which the City Clerk was instructed to forward. This is being forwarded to you merely for informational purposes. MH:vg Enc. a/s cc: Cesar H. Odio, City Manager Opp, TMt WHITE HOUSE RECEIVED WASHINto` ON December 5; 1999 1939 DEC 13 MATTY HIRA1 CITY CLEVK t r Cif- t'lAN, FLA. Dear Ms. Hirai: On behalf of President Bush, thank you for forwarding your resolution in support of his position on flag desecration. The President appreciates knowing your views on this important issue, and you may be sure they have been fully noted. With the President's best wishes to you and your community; j Sincerely, Shirley M. Green Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Messages and Correspondence z f= r I, Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter from Congressman Jack Brooks, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in answer to the City Commission Resolution 89-595 (on the desecration of the U.S. flag), passed and adopted on July 13, 1989, which the City Clerk was instructed to forward. This information is being informational purposes. forwarded to you merely for MH:vg Enc. a/s cc: Cesar H. Odio, City Manager (w/enc.) bAlre! October Ilt 1080 "UT Or THt CITY COMMISSION tubAcT; Response to City of Mjahj Resolution 89-595 T TTY I TY HRAI REFERENCES: City clerk Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter from Congressman Jack Brooks, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in answer to the City Commission Resolution 89-595 (on the desecration of the U.S. flag), passed and adopted on July 13, 1989, which the City Clerk was instructed to forward. This information is being forwarded to you merely for informational purposes. MH: vg Enc. a/s cc: Cesar H. Odio, City Manager (w/enc.) t 10MU WW, 6WOMAN �� +.kAlitIt,VR8C0NbIN y bON b1fiVARDs, GLLlfORNtA 9WIN �.1R..1RiClROAN ?ORWAft L MAnm mu tiCy w %LYN S. *40m tYtW .fERm fMKE �t Nillk 0Xl�1HbM� hATRiCY15tNMEDL•!1. COLOMOb Tili1! OLlCKmAW, KAMAb *A*&y fKVft AUMCHURUM aft* Mm'".1'. JR.. VtCN10AN CHARM t OCNUNItk W* i M , 1lIRICi M M011Rf1SON.t:0tIf11:C7'IC!!T MWAM f. MUMN. bNio LAWI MM J. $ MRN. non= HOWAM L OERMAN, CAUfORNu rim owe"M Vftff" HARM 0. STA00M..RL VMT VIROtNtA 90HN ORYANT, tiftMs lEN:lAbAiN L CM®t11.1tIA IM, atom L M"amE16TER, "Am woultof AG1l� GA COMMItttt ON THE JUDICIARY 2138 RAYWRN t10U$E OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, bC 20516-6216 September 20, 1990 Ms. Matty Hirai City Clerk City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 bear Ms. Hirai: MA.NfRrtY—.ft26J� 9bi MMwRtrv—t4twfob 4 OWA LZ The Speaker of the House has referred to this Committee (Resolution No. 89-505, as adopted by the City of Miami Commission on July 13, 1989, relative to recent Supreme Court decisions on civil rights. This resolution has been forwarded to the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. Sincere irman il o. H0140RAUtt MEMRRRs oATE: October 2, 1989 fib, OR THE t1TY CaI�1�2lSSION SUBAct; Response to city of Miami Resolution 89-595 khOM: *MATTYR$RAl REFERENCE$: City Clerk ENCLOSURES: Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter from Senator Bob Graham in answer to the City Commission Resolution 89-595, passed and adopted on July 13, 1989, which the City Clerk was instructed to forward. This information is being forwarded to you merely for informational purposes. i MH:vg Enc a/s cc: Cesar H. Odio, City Manager z S —a � L/► i u e. t 2 tr rx�,rx> F 1 CONINCI7'1'E(:S: - FLORIDA (BANKING, 44OUMNG, AND URBAN APFAIRS R E C EW E D ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS I3U9 ccA t+� t iy, 1 r` � Q: i ,'�' �, VETERANS AFtAI'AS i JCT 9 G4 1 i�i SPECIAL COMMITftt WASHINGTON. D.C. 20910 .11 AT _' `i 111RA1 September 21, 1989 ON AGING CITY CLERK r'!Tf OF MIAMiI, T1. Matty Hirai Post Office Box 330108 Miami, Florida 33233 bear Matty, Thank you for sharing your views with me regarding the recent Supreme Court decision on the burning of American flags. On June 21, 1989, the Supreme Court determined that the First Amendment protects protesters who burn American flags. to response, several measures have been introduced in the Senate �- including proposals to amend the Constitution -- which would strengthen protections of the physical integrity of the flag. I favor a statutory response to the Supreme Court decision. Toward that end, i have cosponsored legislation (S. 1338) introduced by Senator Biden, which broadens the legal protections covering the American flag. The Senate has postponed consideration of this measure until October to avoid hasty reaction to this sensitive issue. The flag remains a sacred symbol of our ideals, our aspirations, and our identity as a nation. I appreciate your thoughts and comments on this important issue and will have them in mind as this legislation is considered in the Senate. With kind regards, Sincerely, United States Senator - BG/jlb f - r x C � t " *td OWN Om" WASHINGTON, DC 20S 10 September 5, 1989 Matty Hirai, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive, Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 Dear Ms. Hirai: r W o W -$ .43 MAT MRAI '�1 #1F W14 4� FLA. Thank you for sending me a copy of Resolutioft No. 89-595, passed by the Miami City Commission, which strongly urges and supports the adoption of a Constitutional amendment to negate the effects of the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Johnson, and which will expressly prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. I appreciate your sharing this with me. Like you, I disagree with the Supreme Court's conclusion this case and I think it should be corrected. The First Amendment's prohibition on laws that regulate speech is primarily designed to protect political speech. When that protection is expanded to actions as well as words, we enter very shifting and subjective area in which reasonable people can and do disagree. in a In its own decision, the Court split 5-4, with four Justices expressing strong dissent. Such an outcome makes it clear that the opinion's grounding in the Constitution is not profound enough to have overcome the doubts of the dissenters. That is one of the reasons I believe the issue can be resolved through legislative enactment: To explain my views on the issue in more detail than I could do in a brief letter, I am enclosing a copy of a guest column I wrote which appeared in the MAi a Sunday Telegram about this decision and the steps I think should be taken to correct it. I think most Americans can and do agree that burning the flag is an act of vandalism which does not warrant elevation to s- .sr� a Constitutional right. 1 hope the Congress can act to restore that broad consensus to our laws Thank you for sending me a copy of Resolution No. 89-595. 1 commend the City of Miami Commission for the time you have devoted and the position you have taken on this issue. Y assure you T will keep your views in mind when the Senate considers this matter in October. With best regards, Sincerely. Geo ge J. Mitchel r Statement of Senator George L Mitchell July 1989 the following is the text of a guest column that appeared in the Maine Sundae Telegram on Jluly 23, 1989. The Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution explicitly protects the right of all Americans to speak freely. It says nothing about actions. Thus, on its face, the speech provision of the Constitution protects the right of Americans to say things, but does not create a right to do things. Over the years the Supreme Court has both limited and expanded the First Amendment's protection. As a limitation, it has imposed restrictions on some forms of speech. In the 1919 case of Schenk v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that, "The character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." These words represented a commonsense principle of behavior that is essential to preserve a civil society with free speech. Clearly, no First Amendment right would today protect a statement by an airplane passenger that he was about to explode a bomb, even if his purpose was to call attention to his political views. By way of expansion, the Court has extended first Amendment protection to certain actions, even though the Amendment itself specifically protects only speech. The Court has reasoned that certain actions are closely related to speech and should be regarded as a form of speech, particularly where political ideas are involved. In those cases involving action (the Court's phrase is "expressive conduct"), the Court balances the governmental interest in prohibiting the conduct against the burden placed on the individual by not permitting the conduct to occur. In trying to strike that balance, reasonable people can, do and have disagreed. In the flag burning case itself, the Court divided five to four. In another case, a divided court ruled that homeless persons wishing to demonstrate their destitution could not sleep in the square before the White House. The Supreme Court said that sleeping was not a form of speech protected by the Constitution. In another case, local statutes barring demonstrations within a certain distance of foreign embassies have been upheld, because they do not unduly burden speech, and they serve valuable government purposes. In my judgment, the principle applied in those earlier cases applies to the actions in the flag case, The protesters were not denied the right to speak. They chose to burn the flag as an addition to that right, not as a substitute when speech was impossible or endangering. The facts in the case are not in dispute, Gregory L. Johnson, apparently leading a group of demonstrators outside the 1984 Republican National Convention, poured kerosene on an American flag and set a match to it, while his group chanted: "America, the red, white and blue, we spit on you." Those words, offensive as they are to me and the vast majority of Americans, are protected by the First Amendment. To my knowledge, no one disputed their right to say those words. Nobody interfered with their right to speak freely. They were not prevented from speaking. But they did not merely speak. They also acted. It was this action which was punished, not the speech. Indeed, they may well have burned the flag in order to obtain the attention that their speech itself would not have garnered. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom to speak. It guarantees nobody an audience for his words. And if the protestors' purpose was to compel attention that their words alone could not attract, there is no constitutional obligation to provide that attention. I agree with the dissent of Justice John Paul Stevens in this case, when he said, "The case has nothing to do with `disagreeable ideas' ... it involves disagreeable conduct . " Justice Stevens is right; the five -member majority of the court is wrong. Justice Stevens made the point succinctly: "Had [Johnson] chosen to spray paint his message of dissatisfaction on the facade - of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of= an important national asset." The flag is also a national asset, although _4 admittedly an intangible one. 4' We need not permit acts that undermine its r, value for all Americans in order to avoid burdening in slight fashion the speech rights of those who seek to be heard in the face of F£� indifference, not persecution. Every American has the right to speak freely and to dissent from the policies of the government or from the orthodox and accepted views of the day. It is precisely that vast freedom that makes it so unnecessary to condone the desecration of. the flag as a way to express dissent. The Court's decision is wrong and it should be corrected. The Senate has already acted to provide correction. It has unanimously approved legislation that would amend the federal law prohibiting desecration of the flag in a way that, according to Constitutional scholars, is conststenk with the Constitution and the Courrt's opinion, z Enactment into law of such legislation will bp,ti?e fastest, most effective way to deal with t, he matter,' I hope the President and the House of Repre� z f sentatives will soon follow the Senate's lead.; a �# r � �tr s r...-'-.c-^-nr�a*--.,ri-r....+..xr-.+w.•-...,.n. _ _ -4 . �f ci�'^`^� h- .�. To HONORABLE MEMBERS CE THE CITY COMMISSION FROM *��* HIRAI ,lerk DATE `vepzemAeI 7, L 7 o 7 riot SUPBACT Responses to City of Miami. Resolutions 89-595, 80-596 & 89L597 REFERENCES ENCLOSURES: The following responses have been received in connection with transmittal by the City Clerk, as instructed, of Resolutions 89=595 (Desecration of the U.S. Flag), 89-596 (Supreme Court Civil Rights decisions) and 89-597 (Everglades National Park Expansion Bill), passed and adopted on July 13, 1989: 1. William J. Canary, Jr., Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs (89-596 & 89-597). 2. Congressman Dante B. Fascell (89-595 & 89-596). This correspondence is being forwarded to informational purposes. MH:vg Enc a/s cc: Cesar H. Odio, City Manager (w/'enc.) DANit B. fASCELL } 1$tN biBtNiG7, �tbfllbA REIGN A#AIRS toMM111tE CHAIRMAN tEARMS CUR" AND SCIEENCOL INTERNATIONAL OMNIn7EE CHAIRMAN SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL MEMBER �mt�re�s of the �tlMted Otm Ms. Matty Hirai City Clerk City Hall P.O. Box 330708 Miami, FL 33233-0708 Dear Ms. Hirai: "'hWAtnn, PC 20.VY August 28, 1989 Thank you for your letters and enclosures. CHARLES A. O'REGAN s r,tsr,+IlwlstaArn� AgsISrA11t R=' COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND + COOPERATION RV EUhoot NI MOER NORTH AtLA"C ASSEMBLY CHAIRMAN HOUSE DELEGATION s CANADA—UNITED STATES INTERpARLIAMENTARY GROW* MEMBER, U.S. DELEGATION t I appreciate knowing of the City of Miami Commission's opposition to recent Supreme Court decisions regarding flag burning and other civil rights issues. I have long supported constructive efforts to ensure that the freedoms granted b o C y ur onstitution are extended without exception to all Americans, and certainly understand your concern. As a veteran who fought in the European and African campaigns during World War II, I am profoundly distressed by individuals who desecrate our flag. Therefore, I joined in sponsoring and supporting the legislation passed by the House of Representatives which �s expresses our concern over the Supreme Court's decision and states our continued ; commitment to preserving the honor and integrity of the flag. One of the primary reasons I fought for our countrywas to pres and protect the freedoms we all enjoy under the Constitution and the Billeofe Rights. Nevertheless, I find flag burning as a symbol of protest personally abhorrent. However, one of the strengths of our democracy is having right to disagree the and the freedom to express that disagreement even if such an expression is repugnant and offensive. Our flag and our Constitution serve as a symbol and a protection of our nation's liberty and democracy. Both deserve to be honored, respected and protected. The House Judiciary Committee has overwhelmingly approved H.R. 2978, the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which will protect integrity the physical of the flag in all circumstances, regardless of the political sage or motive of mes- anyone who desecrates it. I have joined in sponsoring this carefully dtafted meakute to protect our flag, and I am hopeful that it *11.1 be enacted by the Congress at an early date. Again* many thanks for writing* cerelyo �TA4NTEB,. FASCELL Member of Congress DBF/ACM to. Honorable Mayor and Members DATE July 12, 1989 FILE. of the City C0111mission SUWECT Consent Agenda City commission Meeting July 13, 1989 FROM o a Pilo ez7AREFERENCES. Items #CA=14 and #CA"49 ENCLOSURES. 1. In addition to the correction of Item #CA-14 to reflect & L Lawn and 'Tree Service, Inc. as being a black -owned minority firm, we have modified Item #CA-49 at the request Of Commissioner Dawkins. 2, Original item #C-49 appearing on the Agenda has been redrafted in the form of the two attached separate resolutions: Item #CA-49, a resolution expressing the City Commission's concern over the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in regard to the Flag of the United States and Item #CA-49.1, a resolution concerning recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the area of Civil Rights. 3. The Mayor's announcement prior to calling for the roll call vote on the Consent Agenda should reflect that the vote is being taken subject to the modifications appearing in Paragraphs #1 and #2 above. RFC:bss:P695 August 16, 1989 President George.bush The White House Office August 16, 1990 A The Honorable Dan Ouayle Vice President of the United States 202 Dirk-seh Senate Office Building Washington D.C. 20510 ktt DESECRATION OF THE U.S. FLAG Dear Vice President Ouayle: Enclosed 'herein please find a copy, of Resolution No. 89-5951 passed and adopted by the City of Miami Commission at its meeting held on July 13, 1989, which is self-explanatory. On behalf of the City of Miami, thank you for your attention. V truly yours, 4-. 9/tt YZHirai City Clerk MR t vg Encs a/s _j OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/City Hall/300 Pan American Drive/P.O.Box 330708/Miami, Florida 33231.-0706/(305) 5*6"N5' &4 mAltv 141RAI tfty twA tfsAk 14. bblo tity malfilge MAI 14. m City Mandgar August 16# 1989 MAfty 1HIRAI bt*t1ta t8AR 14. ONO city mthfite f tiiy MahigOt F tti Ak H. *bib City 1Vi6hipt tvlA#`fiY HOW thy CWrk .. {� •. c.b nt.•�r 4 August 16, 1089 The Honorable bante S. Fascell 7855 Southwest 104th Street, Suite 220 Miami Florida 33156 REt DESECRATION OF THE U.S. FLAG ttLt jor f thy to -A C8,kit K ODIO City Man-d'pr August 16, 1989 ga Justice William Brennan V.S. Supreme Court 1 First Street, N.E. Washington D.C. 20053 REt DESECRATION OF THE U.S. FLAG Dear Justice Brennant Enclosed herein please find a copy of Resolution No. 89-595, passed and adopted by the City of Miami Commission at its meeting held on July'13 1989, which is self-explanatory. On behalf of the City of Miami, thank you for your attention. v5PTtruly yours, tty Hira,_ City Clerk MHsvg. y Enct a/s z "MR Off Of THE CITY CLERK/City Hal!/3500 Pan American Drive/P,O.Box 330708/Miami, Florida 33233.0706/(305) 579-6065 } t • err August 160 1989 `. Ya L Justice Byron White U.S. Supreme Court 1 First Street# N.E. ; Washington D.C. 20053 REs DESECRATION OF THE U.S. FLAG bear Justice White = Enclosed herein please find a copy of Resolution No. 89-595# passed and Adopted by the city of Miami commission at its meeting held on duly 13# 1989# which is self; -explanatory. On behalf of the City of Miami# thank you for your attention. Veryltruly yours, , '14 atty Hirai City Clerk MHivg Encf a/s r t OFFICE Of THE CITY CLERK/City Hall/3500 Pan American Drive/P.O.Boz 330708/Miami, florida 33333.0708/(305) 579-bQfiS t tF 00 August 16* 1990 Justice Thurgobd Marshall U.S. Supreme Court I First Street, N.E. Washington D.C. 20053 RP.i DESECRATION OF THE U.S. FLAG Dear Justice Marshalit Enclosed herein please find a copy of Resolution No. 89-595,0 passed and adopted by the City of Miami Commission at its meeting held on July 13, 1989, which is self-explanatory. On behalf of the City of Miami, thank you for your attention. Ve truly yours, ty Hirai - City Clerk MH:vg Enc: a/s y jg QFFICE OFTHE CITY CLERK/City Hall/3500 Pan American Drive/P.O.Oox,33070-8/Miami, Florida 33233,0706/13(*) 579-W5' v August lb, 1989 justice Harry Blackmun tt _ E _ MI m ro rhQ Court August 16, 1959 Justice John Stevens U.S. Suprolue Court 1 First Street, N.E. Washington b.C. 20053 RE: DESECRATION OF THE U.S. FLAG Dear Justice Stevens: Enclosed herein please find a copy of Resolution No. 89-595, passed and adopted by the City of Miami commission at its meeting held on July 13, 1989, which is self, -explanatory. On behalf of the City of Miami, thank you for your attention. Ver ruly yours, tty Hirai:, , City Clerk MH:vg Enc': a/s > Y U y h, y 3 { 'i .7 a-3 k =i 89-59 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/City Hall/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O.Boz 330708/Miami, Florida 33233-0708/(305) $79-6065 CESAR 14. OIDIO thy August 16t 1989 �'Qftfl�� CESAR H. oblo city Mahmpf