Melvin Watt: “Mr. Speaker, the underlying proposed constitutional amendment that is the subject of this debate, and which has been the…”

“Mr. Speaker, the underlying proposed constitutional amendment that is the subject of this debate, and which has been the subject of general debate for now almost 2 hours, reads: ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' The proposed amendment in the nature of a substitute, which I am offering to the underlying proposed constitutional amendment, reads: ``Not inconsistent with the first article of amendment to this Constitution, the Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' We should be clear that many people think that the desecration, the burning of a flag, is a part of an expression against the United States, against some action of the United States, and is a protected means of speech. The Supreme Court has so held, and if the Supreme Court did not hold such, I think that we would be in a position where we could selectively decide who could burn a flag and who could not burn a flag based on whether we agreed with the expression that they were intending to make or whether we disagreed with the expression they intended to make.”