"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" — Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia Convention, 1775

I left the flag out in the rain. I hadn't meant to, but when it rains in Kansas City it comes hard and fast, leaving little time to retrieve things.

I proudly display the colors 24/7. There are rules to flag ownership. Usually I follow the rules. That day I believe I did not. So the flag got drenched.

A recently passed House resolution does not take into account intent. A wet flag would be the same as a burned one. If the House gets its way, flag ownership will be governed by an iron-fisted constitutional amendment that would nullify part of the First Amendment.

Expect this president to sign any such legislation into law.

The House resolution was approved with 286 votes last June and called for "proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

This year, the Senate rejected the proposed amendment on June 28.

Who decides what is or isn't desecration? It will be the same Congress that is prohibited from making any law "abridging the freedom of speech or of the press."

Under our Constitution, if some guy burns a flag in my presence, I have a right to spit on him to put out the fire. If someone wants to make the flag an art exhibit, that's allowable too. It's called freedom of expression.

As Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker observed, "If the proposed amendment is adopted, it will be the first time that the First Amendment, which is the Constitution's crowning glory, has itself been amended — and to constrict it, not expand it."

It groups the United States with China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea, which ban desecration of their flags.

Speaking of North Korea, that Independence Day stunt Kim Jong Il pulled was a reminder of the importance of accountability and checks and balances in government. The leader of the so-called "Democratic Peoples Republic" neither presides over a democracy nor answers to the people.

In America, there is a movement to expand executive powers, thereby stripping Congress of any responsibility to declare war, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

Since the global war on terror, this administration has operated with apparent impunity, answerable to none.

We find ourselves at war in Iraq, where more than 2,500 Americans have died, and in an endless war on terror. Yet, Article I of the Constitution states that Congress, not the executive branch, has power to declare war.

The Bushvolk defy the Constitution and congressional authority. When lawmakers demanded answers about domestic spying and other unconstitutional activities, the White House defiantly stood its ground. The inmates are running the asylum that is the House, and the Senate has been annexed by the executive branch. U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has become the perfect medium for channeling the ghosts of Watergate.

As for the president's domestic spying, Roberts in February told the Kansas City Kansas Area Chamber of Commerce that "in a time of war and probable attack" existing law "ties the president's hands."

The laws of the land, including the Constitution, may be negated by the paternal state presided over by an imperial leader who favors pre-emptive provocation? Sounds too much like North Korea, Cuba, China and Iran.

Rhonda Chriss Lokeman is a columnist for the Kansas City Star.