The American Bar Association appreciates this opportunity to express its opposition to S.J.Res. 4, proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to prohibit physical desecration of the flag, and requests that this statement be made part of the March 10, 2004, hearing record of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to reverse the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, and authorize Congress to criminalize peaceful acts of political expression. The Senate has considered and rejected similar constitutional amendments on several occasions over the past 14 years. We urge you again to resist the emotional appeals of those who argue that protecting the flag from desecration through adoption of a constitutional amendment is the only patriotic course of action. The proposed amendment, which would curtail the protection of individual liberties afforded by the Bill of Rights (a document that has not been changed in its 213 years of existence), should be rejected as bad constitutional policy and bad law. At best, the proposal is a diversion from the real issues facing the country; at worst, it marks a profound and unwelcome change in our society and culture by conveying the message that we fear, rather than cherish, our freedom of speech. Advocates of the proposed amendment to ban flag desecration rightly

remind us that the American flag serves as the preeminent symbol of our great Nation. It represents a uniting bond among our diverse population, and it symbolizes our unequivocal commitment to freedom and democracy. But we

must not forget that what we salute when we rise in its honor is not the bunting, but the ideals of the Constitution for which it stands -- including freedom of

expression and the right to express dissenting views regarding Government actions through our writings, speech or other expressive conduct. In attempting to protect the flag against offensive but peaceful political expressions, this proposed amendment diminishes the very freedoms the flag represents.

The exceedingly rigid idea embodied in this proposed amendment -- that some object must be made so sacrosanct that it is reserved for only governmentally approved uses -- promotes the cloth used to make the symbol at the expense of the freedoms it represents. We celebrate the American flag as a symbol of freedom that is unparalleled throughout the world. It would be tragic to turn that symbol against freedom.

Rather than protecting patriotism, this amendment would dishonor it. The millions of men and women who have put themselves in harm's way in the service of our nation -- whether it be in the two World Wars, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, or in Iraq today -- did so to ensure that the rights guaranteed in the Constitution will be available to ourselves and our progeny and in the hope that the bedrock principles of democracy will take hold in other

troubled parts of the world.

Amendment supporters argue that the Supreme Court abandoned history and the intent of the First Amendment and erred in Texas v. Johnson because it made no distinction between oral and written speech about the flag and

disrespectful destruction of the flag. According to this line of reasoning,

expressions of disagreement that are akin to written expressions are protected by the First Amendment but disrespectful desecration is not. This assertion contradicts both American history and legal precedent. Since its founding, our Nation has thrived on the vigor of free speech and robust dissent not only through the spoken or written word, but through peaceful acts of political protest, however repugnant they may be to some. A band of patriots dumping tea into Boston Harbor, a single student standing before a tank in Tiananmen Square, an African-American woman refusing to give up her seat on a bus -- each conveyed a powerful message without requiring a single word. Indeed, political dissent has often most powerfully been expressed through peaceful expressions of protest. And, the strength of our constitutional republic is that the government may not prohibit such expressions simply because the majority finds the means of that expression offensive.

Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson described this essential characteristic of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, a flag salute case that dates back to 1943:

[F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much.
That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its
substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of
the existing order.

Those who support the proposed flag amendment try to minimize its

corrosive effect on freedom of speech and expression by stating that it does not stifle political dissent because a multitude of other forms of expression are

permitted and that restrictions on freedom of speech already exist and have not

jeopardized our democracy. Both arguments are specious. It is true that there are alternative forms of expression, but the First Amendment jealously guards the right to express our views about our government or laws in the manner of our choice, so long as that choice is through peaceful words or conduct; and it forbids the Government from requiring that "designated symbols be used to communicate only a limited set of messages."

Similarly, it is true that there are existing limitations on speech, but they serve a different purpose than what is proposed here. Limitations have been placed on speech that incites violence, induces illegal acts, causes harm to persons by defaming them, or aids the enemy in times of war. Indeed, offensive acts, including flag burning, committed for the purpose of inciting to riot or otherwise causing a breach of the peace or with the knowledge that there is an imminent danger that the offensive act will have that effect, is currently punishable. In fact, close to two-thirds of the 44 incidents of flag burning from 1989 to present noted on the Citizen's Flag Alliance website (www.cfainc.org/issues/issues.htm) involved criminal activity that was already punishable under existing law. In contrast, the proposed flag desecration amendment seeks to punish peaceful, symbolic protests that violate no laws: it would, for the first time in our Nation's history, restrict non-violent criticism of our government or its laws and symbols.

Finally, advocates of this amendment contend that the measure is needed

to instill in our citizens a sense of respect for the flag and for what it represents.

We respectfully disagree. Americans do not need a constitutional amendment to