This week, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is expected to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the desecration of the American flag.

Thank God he's sticking to his time-honored patriotic pander at the expense of the First Amendment.

Where is the minority leader's leadership in pressing the Republicans in charge to take up important issues? Just three weeks ago, Reid, D-Nev., gave an impassioned floor speech against the proposed amendment banning gay marriage. In the speech, he railed against $3-a-gallon gasoline and the full backing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld despite the "intractable war" in Iraq. Reid said President Bush won't acknowledge the national debt or global warming. He argued health care, education and crime have all gotten worse under the current administration.

"So, why are we being directed by the president and this Republican majority to debate an amendment to the Constitution, a document inspired more than two centuries ago?" Reid asked just before the gay marriage amendment came for a vote that failed. "Why would we be asked to change this American masterpiece?"

Reid was correct in pointing out that the gay marriage amendment was the administration's way of "avoiding the tough, real problems that Americans are confronted with each and every day."

So how can Reid support the erosion of rights for all Americans with a vote supporting punishment for those who would protest this nation's policies by defacing a symbol?

Why would Reid tear down the very foundation of this nation? So he looks patriotic? Patriotism would be working tirelessly to garner enough votes to kill the amendment, just as the two parties' second-ranking senators have been doing. Both Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., have decried the pending vote to ban flag desecration.

The ban passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 11-7 and could come up for a vote in the full Senate as soon as today. It is widely believed to be one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment. Will Reid work his magic again to flip a senator?

How can a frivolous amendment be bad on June 5, but perfectly fine on June 27?

Reid has been a consistent supporter of amendments banning flag desecration. He has said his mentor, the late Gov. Mike O'Callaghan, supported the ban.

Big Mike, a decorated and respected veteran, was wrong to value a symbol over substance, and so is Reid.

This is the time for Reid to finally say enough's enough. The rights of all Americans are under assault in this administration, and acquiescence by Democrats is making it all possible, from the war to the Patriot Act to the happy ban on burning the flag.

Although the courts have consistently rejected bans on flag desecration in recent years, the House of Representatives approved a constitutional ban last year with just eight votes over the two-thirds supermajority needed. You can thank Nevada's delegation for three of them. Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley and Republican Reps. Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter all supported the ban.

Berkley said she has long promised veterans that she would support such an amendment, calling it a "commitment to those who were willing to give their lives so that we may continue to live in freedom."

Republican Sen. John Ensign, who also plans to vote for the ban, said: "While I vigorously defend the right of speech and expression, burning the American flag sends precisely the wrong message and should not be allowed."

Politicians love to hide behind polls on issues. But Americans aren't hiding their disgust over the erosion of their rights and privacy any longer. A poll conducted by the First Amendment Center in June 2005 found 63 percent said the Constitution "should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag." In a similar survey in 2004, 53 percent opposed the amendment. And veterans? What good is fighting for freedom and liberty if we can't have it at home?

Whatever happened to standing up for bedrock principles -- like Harry Reid's right to criticize Bush?

The First Amendment isn't needed to protect someone from agreeing with the president or the mayor. The First Amendment is needed to protect controversial or repugnant speech, from Holocaust denials to waving the Confederate flag.

A constitutional amendment would allow Congress to criminalize any "physical desecration" of the American flag. Does that mean the cops will arrest me when the flag hanging above my garage gets frayed from the wind?

All five of Nevada's federal representatives are wrong to honor a symbol more than the freedoms it stands for.

But Reid, a leader whose power comes from being able to voice a dissenting opinion, now wants none of us to have one.

Erin Neff's column runs Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. Reach her at (702) 387-2906, or at eneff@reviewjournal.com.