It speaks volumes that the Senate debated and, ultimately shot down (again), a measure that would have empowered Congress to push toward a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the U.S. flag. The vote tally: 66-34, the closest margin the measure has seen.

Debate happens in this open and representative democracy - arguably the most successful on in modern history. That debate shows the power of symbolism over symbols.

I seems that, in a non-election year vacuum, much of this ongoing debate revolves around whether flag burning falls into the category of political speech. The Supreme Court has ruled yes twice: in 1989’s Texas v. Johnson decision, and again in 1990’s U.S. v. Eichman decision. The former rebuffed a state law, and the latter shot down the 1989 Flag Protection Act passed at the federal level. Both were 5-4 decisions, what one of my professors used to term “bad law” because such decisions can change with the prevailing wind.

Are symbolic actions a form of political statement? Let me answer rhetoric with rhetoric: If a flag burns in protest, do people pay attention?

The Supreme Court’s makeup has changed quite a bit in 16 years. It’s possibly that, had Congress passed this most recent resolution, inevitable challenges would have met with less legal sympathy.

Does that mean the Flag Desecration Amendment should have passed? The measure enjoys wide support, with all 50 states having passed resolutions that support its intent. Is wide support justification enough?

Let me come back to weighing symbols v. symbolism. Which gives us the platform on which to enjoy this debate, the flag or what it represents?

One the media, from the other side of the brightly beaming headlights. Could it be that pack journalism not only debases the subjects, but also the audience?

This just in, Mark Cuban doesn’t seem to use basic grammar and spelling. Let’s get the skinny from his grade-school teacher…