Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, argued against the proposal,
telling colleagues: "The flag is a symbol of our great nation and the
fundamental freedoms that have made this nation great."

"If the flag needs protection at all, it is from members of Congress
who value the symbol more than the freedoms the flag represents," Nadler
said.

House approves flag-protection amendment

Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:39 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposed constitutional amendment to ban
burning of the American flag won the approval of the U.S. House of
Representatives on Wednesday and was sent to the Senate where it may finally
succeed after years of rejection.

"It's going to be really close (in the Senate), within a one- or
two-vote margin," said Terri Schroeder of the American Civil Liberties Union,
which has lobbied against the measure. It must also be ratified by the
states to become law.

The increasingly conservative nature of the Republican-led, 100-member
Senate along with a renewed sense of patriotism fanned by the Iraq war
have made proponents optimistic.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and a chief backer of the measure,
"is hopeful we have the votes," said his spokesman Adam Elggren. "He's
pretty confident."

Backers argue the legislation is needed to protect a symbol of American
democracy; foes warn it would infringe on First Amendment guarantees of
freedom of speech.

The House approved a ban by 286-130. It has voted repeatedly for such a
measure since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag burning
was protected free speech.

The Senate has rejected the proposed amendment in the past, most
recently in 2000 by four votes. Republicans expanded their Senate majority in
last year's elections by four to 55.

To become law, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by
two-thirds of the House and Senate, and then ratified by three-fourths,
or 38, of the 50 states.

At the ACLU, Schroeder said she was pleased that House approval of the
measure on Wednesday was by "the narrowest margin yet." Two years ago,
the House approved it, 300-125, she said.

"I'm feeling a little hopeful," Schroeder said. But she noted 65
senators have voted for the measure before or have said they will support it
this time.

CLOSE SENATE VOTE PREDICTED

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia,
predicted a close Senate vote, one that lawmakers who face tough
reelections next year may think hard about.

"It's tough to vote against because if you do it's automatic you'll
face an attack ad in your next campaign," Sabato said. "The First
Amendment is not easy to defend."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, argued against the proposal,
telling colleagues: "The flag is a symbol of our great nation and the
fundamental freedoms that have made this nation great."

"If the flag needs protection at all, it is from members of Congress
who value the symbol more than the freedoms the flag represents," Nadler
said.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, spoke in favor of the
measure, saying, "All 50 state legislatures have passed resolutions
calling on Congress to pass a flag protection amendment, and polls
demonstrate the overwhelming majority of Americans have consistently supported
a flag protection amendment."

"While our courts have authority to interpret the Constitution, under
our system of government, the American people should and must have
ultimate authority to amend it," Sensenbrenner said.

The proposal was drafted in response to a 1989 Supreme Court decision
that struck down a Texas law against flag desecration and a 1990
decision that ruled as unconstitutional a flag protection law passed by
Congress.

The measure would specifically amend the Constitution to permit
Congress to pass a law to protect the flag from desecration.

URL:http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-06-22T223928Z_01_N22705278_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-CONGRESS-FLAG-DC.XML