单选题 The phrase "litmus test" is in bad odor for good reason: politicians should be judged on a variety of positions, not just one. But deep down, nearly every voter has at least one litmus test— an issue so personally important that a politician who fails the test is forever tainted, or at least excluded from consideration for the presidency.
I inherited my one litmus test from my father, Jim Alter, who flew 33 harrowing missions over Nazi Germany during World War 11. 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. Such disrespect is a much more serious threat than the random idiots who once every decade or so try (often unsuccessfully) to burn a flag.
Our understandable outrage at flag burning shouldn"t turn our brains to mush. "I feel the same sense of outrage, but I would not amend that great shield of democracy (the Constitution) to hammer a few miscreants," Colin Powell said when the issue last came up (his position has not changed). "The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away." Powell argues that a constitutional ban on flag burning is a sign of weakness and fear.
John Glenn, another of the thousands of combat veterans against the amendment (they have banded together in a group called Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights), notes that "those 10 amendments we call the Bill of Rights have never been changed or altered by one iota, not by one word, not a single time in all of American history. There was not a single change during any of our foreign wars, and not during recessions or depressions or panics. Not a single change when we were going through times of great emotion and anger like the Vietnam era, when flag after flag was burned or desecrated. There is only one way to weaken our nation. The way to weaken our nation would be to erode the freedom that we all share."
Actually, even during the Vietnam War, flag burning was rare. By one count, there have been only 45 such incidents in 200 years, and fewer than half a dozen since it was outlawed in 1989. Should the Constitution be amended, however, the incidence of flag burning is expected to surge as a form of civil disobedience. What began as a phony issue designed to prove patriotism (usually on the part of those who never served, the primary sponsors) could become a real concern.
The flag-burning amendment, which already passed the House, is apparently just short of the 67 needed in the Senate. With one or two absences, the amendment would be approved. It would then go to the states for ratification, where its chances for approval appear good.
Senators afraid of being seen as soft on flag burners should just adopt the Hillary Clinton dodge: support for a statute, but not an amendment. Another law is a dopey idea (an earlier one was struck down by the Supreme Court), but it"s politically safe and better than perverting the Constitution.
To make matters worse, the amendment is vaguely worded, which led to fatuous debate in the Senate over whether a woman wearing a skimpy bathing suit patterned with stars and stripes was guilty of desecration. Bloggers wondered the same thing about President Bush"s new habit of autographing flags when he shakes hands on rope lines. Unconstitutional? With a war on and a hundred other pressing problems, it"s nice to see our elected representatives focused on what really counts.
The usual litmus tests-abortion, gun control, Iraq-shouldn"t be. Reasonable and sincere people can disagree, with at least one or two principled arguments on each side. The flag burning amendment is in a category by itself: the only argument for it is based on pure emotion. But ours is supposed to be a government of reason, not emotion, especially when it comes to the most precious repository of, our rights. The American Constitution, the apogee of reason in the history of self government, is real; the American flag, for all of its beauty and deep meaning, is symbolic. For more than 200 years, we"ve occasionally used the amendment process to expand rights. This would be the first time we would enshrine their restriction. Polluting the Constitution is far more dangerous than burning the flag.

单选题 Which of the following is true about the author"s attitude towards "litmus test" in America?

单选题 Why does the author mention his father Jim Alter in the passage?

单选题 According to the passage, which of the following will be most harmful to the United States of America?

单选题 According to the passage, which of the following statements is true?

单选题 What does the author mean by "the American flag, for all of its beauty and deep meaning, is symbolic" in the last paragraph?