AMERICAN PEOPLE RESPOND. RESPECT ISN'T GOING TO BE COERCED. IT
           CAN ONLY BE GIVEN VOLUNTARILY. SOME MAY FIND IT MORE
           COMFORTABLE TO SILENT DISSENTING VOICES, BUT COERCED SILEE CAN
           ONLY CREATE RESENTMENT, DISRESPECT, AND DISUNITY. THINK OF
           THAT. RESPECT CANNOT BE COERCED. IT CAN ONLY BE GIVEN
           VOLUNTARILY. SOME MAY FIND IT MORE COMFORTABLE TO SILENCE

           DISSENTING VOICES, BUT COERCED SILENCE CAN ONLY CREATE
           RESENTMENT AND DISRESPECT AND DISUNILATERALTY. YOU DON'T STAMP
           OUT A BAD IDEA BY PREESING T YOU STAMP TOUT WITH A BETTER IDEA.
           MY BETTER SIDE TO FLY THE FLAG AT HOME, NOT BECAUSE A LAW TELLS
           ME TO, NOT BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SAYS THIS IS WHAT I
           HAVE TO SHOW FOR RESPECT; I DO IT BECAUSE AS AN AMERICAN I WANT
           TO. I'M IMMENSELY PROUD OF BEING ONE OF THE TWO SENATORS WHO IS

           GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE STATE OF VERMONT
           VERMONT. BUT I FLY THAT FLALING OUT OF PRIDE -- THAT FLAG OUT
           OF PRIDE. FRANKLY, MR. PRESIDENT, AIM -- I'M AN ORDINARY-ENOUGH
           VERMONTER THAT IF THERE WAS A LAW THAT SAID I HAD TO FLY THAT
           FLAG, I WOULDN'T DO T I DO IT BECAUSE I WANT TO DO IT. THE SAME
           SENSE OF PRIDE -- I HAD THE SAME SENSE OF PRIDE WHEN I SAW MY
           SON MARCH IN UNIFORM WITH THAT FLAG FLYING. I HAD THE SAME
           SENSE OF PRIDE THAT I SEE THAT FLAG FLYING OVER THIS CAPITOL

           BUILDING EVERY DAY WHEN I DRIVE TO WORK. THE FRENCH PHILOSOPHER
           VOLUNTARY ONCE REMARKED THAT LIBSSERT A GUEST WHO PLANTS BOTH
           OF HIS ELBOWS ON THE TABLE TABLE. WHAT I THINK HE MEANT BY THAT
           IS THAT LIBERTY IS SOMETIMES AN UNRULY, EVEN AN UNMANNERLY,
           EVEN A VULGAR GUEST. LIBERTY DEMANDS THAT WE BE TOLERANT EVEN
           WHEN IT'S HARD TO DO SO. OUR FREEDOMS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE
           PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT DISSENT MUST BE
           TOLERATED WHETHER IT IS EXPRESSED IN POLITE AND DIFFERENTIAL

           TONES OR IN A CRUDE AND REPUGNANT MANNER. WE'RE A MATURE ENOUGH
           POLITICAL COMMUNITY TO KNOW
           
           WHAT EVERY CHILD KNOWS: THAT UNLIKE STICKS AND STONES, WORDS
           AND EXPRESSIONS NEED NOT HURT US. THEY CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT
           JUSTIFY A LOSS OF THE RIGHTS THAT PROTECT THE LIBERTIES OF US
           ALL. ESPECIALLY DISSPECKABLE GESTURES ARE HARD TO TOLERATE, BUT
           WE DO SO BECAUSE POLITICAL EXPRESSION IS SO CENTRAL TO WHAT
           MAKES AMERICA GREAT AND WHAT PROTECTION THE RIGHTS -- AND WHAT
           PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF EACH OF US TO SPEAK, TO WORSHIP AS WE

           CHOOSE AND TO PETITION OUR GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS. I'VE TAKEN
           SUCH PRIDE IN GOING, AS I'VE SAID, IN GOING TO COUNTRIES WITH
           DICTATORS, COUNTRIES THAT REQUIRE A LAW TO PROTECT THEIR FLAGS
           AND THEIR SYMBOLS AND SAY, "WE DON'T NEED SUCH A LAW IN OUR
           COUNTRY BECAUSE IN THIS GREAT NATION OF A QUARTER OF A BILLION
           PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE PROTECT OUR SYMBOLS, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE
           FORCED TO DO SO BUT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DO SO." I WAS BROUGHT

           UP TO BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
           PART OF OUR DEMOCRACY. IT ALLOWS US TO PRACTICE ANY RELIGION WE
           WANT OR NO RELIGION IF WE WANT. AND IT ALLOWS US TO SAY WHAT WE
           WANT, AND THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT STOP US. AND SO WHAT DOES THAT
           MEAN, MR. PRESIDENT?
           IT MEANS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DIVERSITY, DIVERSITY IN
           RELIGION, DIVERSITY IN THOUGHT, DIVERSITY IN SPEECH, DIVERSITY

           THAT IS GUARANTEED AND PROTECTED IN THIS NATION, AND WHEN YOU
           GUARANTEE AND PROTECT DIVERSITY, THEN YOU GUARANTEE AND PROTECT
           A DEMOCRACY BECAUSE NO DEMOCRACY -- REAL DEMOCRACY EXISTS
           WITHOUT DIVERSITY. AND WHEN YOU EXCLUDE AND STAMP OUT
           DIVERSITY, THEN I GUARANTEE YOU, YOU STAMP OUT DEMOCRACY,

           WHETHER IT IS A TALABAN OR ANY OF THE TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS
           OF HISTORY, DIVERSITY, IF DISSENT, IF FREE SPEECH IS STAMPED
           OUT, DEMOCRACY GOES WITH IT. AND IN AMERICA, DEMOCRACY HAS
           SUCCEEDED BECAUSE WE HAVE FOUND A WAY TO LIVE WITH THAT UNRULY
           GUEST WITH HIS ELBOWS ON OUR TRXAIL THE VOLUNTARY SPOKE OF. AND
           TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ACTS WHICH ARE DISRESPECTFUL AND CRUDE MAY

           NONETHELESS BE LAWFUL LAWFUL, AND WE PROTECT DISSENT BECAUSE WE
           LOVE LIBERTY, NOT BECAUSE WE OPPOSE LIBERTY BUT BECAUSE WE LOVE
           IT. THE VERY IMPIETY THAT THESE ACTLS PUT US TO THE TEST AS
           LOVERS OF LIBERTY. WENDELL PHILLIPS, THE GREAT NEW ENGLAND

           ABOLITIONIST, WROLETE "THE COMMUNITY WHICH DARES NOT TO PROTECT
           ITS HUMBLEST AND MOST HATED MEMBER IN THE FREE UTTERANCE OF HIS
           OPINION, NO MATTER HOW FALSE AND HATEFUL, IS ONLY A GANG OF
           SLAVES." NOW, NO MAN DISAGREED MORE VEHEMENTLY WITH WENDELL
           PHILLIPS IN THE BURNING ISSUES OF THEIR DAY THAN SENATOR JOHN
           C. CALHOUN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. SENATOR CALHOUN CAME TO MUCH THE
           SAME CONCLUSION ON SPEECH ON THE SENATE FLOOR IN 1848 MORE THAN

           150 YEARS AGO. HE SAID "WE HAVE PASSED THROUGH SO MANY
           DIFFICULTIES AND DANGERS WITHOUT THE LOSS OF LIBERTY THAT WE
           HAVE BEGUN TO THINK THAT WE HOLD IT BY DIVINE RIGHT FROM HEAVEN
           ITSELF ITSELF. BUT IT IS HARDER TO PRESERVE THAN TO OBTAIN
           LIBERTY. AFTER YEARS OF PROSPERITY, THE TENURE BY WHICH IT IS
           HELD IS BUT TOO OFTEN FORGOTTEN AND I FEAR SENATORS THAT SUCH
           IS THE CASE WITH US." NOW, I REPRESENT A STATE THAT HAS A PROUD

           TRADITION OF DEFENDING LIBERTY, AND A STATE THAT ENCOURAGES
           OPEN DEBATE. WE ARE THE STATE OF THE TOWN MEETING. AND, MR.
           PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OPEN DEBATE, WHETHER AS A
           MEMBER OF THIS GREAT BODY OR OTHER LEGISLATIVE BODY, UNTIL YOU
           HAVE BEEN TO A VERMONT TOWN MEETING. THERE IS DEBATE. THERE ARE

           EXPRESSIONS. THERE IS HEAT. AND THERE IS OFTEN LIGHT. I'M PROUD
           THAT IN 1995 THE VERMONT LEGISLATURE CHOSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
           OVER THE TEMPTATION TO MAKE A POLITICALLY POPULAR ENDORSEMENT
           OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REGARDING THE FLAG. THE VERMONT
           HOUSE PASSED A RESOLUTION URGING RESPECT FOR THE FLAG AND ALSO
           RECOGNIZING THE VALUE OF PROTECTING FREE SPEECH BOTH BENIGN AND
           OVERTLY OFFENSIVE. OUR VERMONT ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS URGED THAT
           WE TRUST THE CONSTITUTION, NOT THE PASSION OF THE TIMES. BUT

           VERMONT'S ACTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH OUR STRONG TRADITION OF
           INDEPENDENCE AND COMMITMENT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS. INDEED,
           VERMONT'S OWN CONSTITUTION IS BASED ON OUR COMMITMENT TO
           FREEDOM AND OUR BELIEF THAT IT IS BEST PROTECTED BY OPEN
           DEBATE. IN FACT, VERMONT DID NOT JOIN THE UNION UNTIL THE BILL
           OF RIGHTS WAS RATIFIED AND PART OF -- IN PART OF THIS COUNTRY'S
           FUNDAMENTAL KHEAFERMENT WE ARE THE 14TH STPHAIT THIS UNION, BUT
           WE WAITED BECAUSE WE WERE SO PROTECTIVE OF OUR OWN LIBERTY. WE

           WERE AT ONE TIME DECLARED OUR SELF AN INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC. WE
           WANTED TO MAKE SURE OUR PEOPLE HAD THEIR LIBERTIES PROTECTED.
           WE IN VERMONT WAITED UNTIL THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS PART OF THE
           CONSTITUTION. AND FOLLOWING THAT TRADITION, THIS VERMONTER IS
           NOT GOING TO VOTE TO AMEND THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE FIRST
           TIME SINCE IT WAS ADOPTED. AND CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO BE THE

           FIRST VERMONTER TO DO SO. ER HAVE MONTH SENT MATTHEW LIE ONTO
           CONGRESS AND HE CAST THE DECISIVE VOTE FOR VERMONT OF THOMAS
           JEFFERSON WHEN THAT ELECTION WAS THROWN INTO THE HOUSE OF
           REPRESENTATIVES. AND HE WAS THE SAME HOUSE MEMBER WHO WAS THE
           TARGET OF A SHAMEFUL PROSECUTION UNDER THE SEDITION ACT IN 1789
           FOR COMMENTS MADE IN A PRIVATE LETTER. HE WAS LOCKED UP AND
           VERMONT SHOWED WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF THE SEDITION ACT. THEY

           SHOWED WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF TRYING TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH
           SPEECH. VERMONT SAID, FINE. MATTHEW LEON'S IN JAIL. WE'RE STILL
           REELECT LIMB TO CONGRESS AND, BY GOD, WE DID. WHY?
           BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING, DON'T TRAMPLE ON OUR RIGHT OF FREE
           SPEECH. VERMONT SERVED THE NATION AGAIN IN THE DARK DAYS OF
           MCCARTHYISM. WHEN I THINK THAT PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST
           REMARKABLE AND PRAISEWORTHY ACTIONS OF ANY VERMONT SENATOR,

           CERTAINLY THE 20TH CENTURY, THE OUTSTANDING VERMONT SENATOR,
           SENATOR RALPH FLANDERS, HE HE STOOD UP FOR DEMOCRACY AND IN
           OPPOSITION TO THE REPRESSIVE TACTICS OF JOSEPH MCCARTHY WHEN SO
           MANY OTHERS RAN FOR COVER IN BOTH PARTIES -- BOTH REPUBLICANS
           AND DEMOCRATS. SENATOR RALPH FLANDERS, THIS QUINTESSENTIAL
           REPUBLICAN, CONSERVATIVE, BUSINESSMAN OF VERMONT, CAME ON THE
           FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND SAID, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. AND HE ASKED

           FOR THE CENSURE OF SENATOR MCCARTHY. VERMONT, THIS IS A GREAT
           TRADITION THAT WE CHERISH. IT IS ONE THAT I INTEND TO UPHOLD.
           THE "THE NEW YORK TIMES" HAD IT RIGHT EARLIER THIS WEEK IN ITS
           EDITORIAL ON MONDAY, "IF THE SENATE TRULY RESPECTED THE
           CONSTITUTION IT IS SWORN TO UPHOLD IT WOULD NOT BE TRIFLEING
           WITH A BILL OF RIGHTS AND ITS PRECIOUS GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF
           SPEECH. YET THAT IS WHAT IT IS DOING WHEN IT CONSIDERS THE
           SO-CALLED FLAG DESECRATION AMENDMENT, A MISCHIEFOUS ADDITION TO
           THE CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD WEAKEN THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION

           BY ALLOWING FEDERAL LAWS BANNING PHYSICAL DESECRATION OF THE
           FLAG. "THE WASHINGTON POST" ALSO OPPOSED THIS AMENDMENT IN A
           RECENT EDITORIAL. IT NOTED THAT FLAG BURNING IS "ONLY ONE AMONG
           MANY TYPES OF OFFENSIVE EXPRESSION, THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS
           HAS PROTECTED THROUGHOUT AMERICAN HISTORY." THEN THEY ADDED,
           "THE PRINCIPLE THAT CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESTRICTING
           SPEECH LOSES MUCH OF ITS POWER WHEN EXCEPTIONS BEGIN TURNING
           THE 'NO' INTO ONLY A FEW. THE POLITICAL POINT SENATORS WIN BY

           SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT ARE NOT WORTH THE COST." REMEMBER THE
           FIRST AMENDMENT, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. IT DOESN'T SAY,
           "CONGRESS SHALL NOT MAKE A BUNCH OF LAWS." OR "CONGRESS SHALL
           NOT MAKE SOME LAWS." OR "CONGRESS SHALL NOT MAKE LITTLE LAWS
           VERSUS BIG LAWS." RESTRICTING SPEECH. OR "CONGRESS SHOULD NOT
           MAKE LAWS ON MONDAY VERSUS FRIDAY RESTRICTING SPEECH." IT SAYS

           "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS" I REMEMBER BEING IN AN ARGUMENT
           IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WHEN I WAS A YOUNG LAW STUDENT, AND
           LOU GO BLACK SAYING -- AND HUGO BLACK SAYING, I READ THE
           CONSTITUTION TO SAY CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS TO MEAN,
           CORNING MAKE NO LAWS. I FIND IT -- CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS.
           I FIND IT PRETTY CLEAR. "THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE" SAID THIS. "THE

           AMENDMENT IS A GROSS OVERREACTION TO A NONPROBLEM. INCIDENCES
           OF FLAG BURNING ARE EXCEEDINGLY RARE. THEY DO NO HARM BEYOND
           CAUSING LEGITIMATE DISGUST AMONG PATRIOTIC AMERICANS. DISGUST,
           HOWEVER, IS NOT AN ADEQUATE REASON TO TAKE THE EXTRAORDINARY
           STEP OF ALTERING THE NATION'S FOUNDING DOCUMENT AND ALTERING IT
           TO CURTAIL ONE OF OUR MOST FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES. CLOSE QUOTE.

           SO MANY TIMES I HEAR EDITORIALS FROM "THE WASHINGTON TIMES" --
           ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE CONGRESS TAKES TOO OFTEN A
           LIBERAL BEND. WELL, "THE WASHINGTON TIMES"
           
           TODAY SAID THIS: -- IN THEIR EDITORIAL AND THEY OPPOSE THIS
           AMENDMENT. THEY SAID "THEY OPPOSE IT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE
           ONLY STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO EXPAND, NOT CURTAIL,
           THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTMENT. " THEY WENT TON SAY,
           LAWS REFLECT THE CULTURED AND CONSTITUTION. BOTH GOVERN A

           PEOPLE'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOVERNMENT. SOMETIMES HOWEVER
           THE TWO COLLIDE AND THE NATION'S LEADERS MUST DECIDE BETWEEN
           EXPRESSING THE CULTURE THROUGH LAW OR ABIDING BY CONSTITUTIONAL
           RESTRAINTS THAT LIMIT GOVERNMENT'S POWERS TO DO SO. THAT'S WHY
           WE DON'T EXPAND OUR GOVERNMENT'S POWER AS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
           AMENDMENT WOULD ASK US TO DO BUT, RATHER, RETRAIVEN THE A
           LIMITED POWER -- RETAIN THE LIMITED POWER OF OUR GOVERNMENT'S

           PEOPLE TO TELL US HOW TO THIFMT THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS MORE
           THAN SIMPLY
{END: 2000/03/29 TIME: 16-00 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}