As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Americans will once again celebrate the language of rights — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These words are rightly revered. But the declaration was never meant to be read as a list of entitlements alone. It was a statement of responsibility, risk and commitment.
Read more High school boys volleyball: Deseret News 2026 Players of the Year showed playoff excellence
The declaration does not announce independence casually. It justifies it. It appeals to reason and moral law, and it ends not with a demand but with a pledge. The signers committed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the cause they advanced. From the beginning, American liberty has been inseparable from obligation.
That distinction is often lost in modern debates over free speech, particularly when it comes to burning the American flag. The Supreme Court has held that flag burning is protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment. I understand the doctrine. I accept that it is the law. And yet, I believe the court got it wrong.
Other America 250 related opinion pieces:
- Opinion: Why America is worth celebrating
- Opinion: Why promise equality if it wasn’t true?
- Opinion: The Declaration of Independence — choosing natural rights and human equality
- Opinion: After 250 years, has America forgotten how to argue with itself?
- Opinion: Martha Washington — America’s founding mother
The failure is not a lack of commitment to free speech. It is a failure to distinguish between rights and responsibilities, and between what the Constitution protects and what the flag represents.
The Constitution exists to secure rights. That is its purpose and its genius. The flag, however, is not a rights-bearing document. It is a symbol of obligation, sacrifice and civic continuity. It represents what has been given — often at real cost — so that constitutional liberty can exist at all. Treating the flag as merely another vehicle for personal expression collapses that distinction and reduces citizenship to entitlement alone.
This difference is embedded in one of the most familiar civic rituals in American life. We pledge allegiance to the flag. Allegiance is not about rights; it is about obligation. We do not pledge allegiance to ourselves or to our personal freedoms. We pledge allegiance to the republic — to the idea that liberty can endure because citizens govern themselves, not because the government governs everything for them.
When we say the words “with liberty and justice for all,” we are not asserting a personal demand. We are acknowledging a shared responsibility. Liberty and justice do not sustain themselves. They require commitment, restraint and sacrifice. The flag symbolizes that commitment. To burn it is not merely to protest a policy or criticize a government action; it is to repudiate the idea that such obligations exist at all.
As a veteran, this distinction is not abstract for me. The flag is not a rhetorical device or a metaphor. It represents obligations that were actually borne by real people, some of whom did not return. That does not grant veterans greater legal authority, nor should it. But it does give moral weight to the argument that the flag functions as civic infrastructure, not merely expressive material.
Read more High school boys volleyball: Deseret News 2026 3A All-State team
This is not an argument against protest. The declaration itself is an act of dissent. But it is dissent grounded in responsibility. The signers did not destroy symbols to express contempt; they pledged themselves to an idea and accepted the consequences. Protest, in the American tradition, seeks reform within a shared framework. Burning the flag instead proclaims a rejection of the framework itself.
Governments already recognize that some symbols and practices are foundational. We protect currency, regulate military insignia, enforce oaths and preserve the decorum of courts. These are not arbitrary restrictions on expression. They are acknowledgments that a republic depends on more than individual assertion — it depends on shared commitments.
As the nation approaches its 250th year, the question is not whether Americans still value rights. We clearly do. The harder question is whether we still understand the responsibilities that make those rights possible.
A constitutional system can survive disagreement, protest, and even anger. What it may not survive is a civic culture that insists on rights without obligation and treats the symbols of shared sacrifice as disposable.
The declaration began with an appeal to natural rights. It ended with a pledge of responsibility. If we are to honor it at 250, we would do well to remember that liberty was never meant to stand alone.
This bit of civics is supported by the Center for Constitutional Studies. Learn more about how we are marking the Declaration of Independence’s 250th anniversary.
Read more Offended? Excited? Curious? What to know about the White House UFC fights