mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. speaker , i have a deep respect for the arguments that have been advanced by the gentleman from new york and other opponents of this amendment . 
i disagree with them . 
and i think the vast majority of the american people disagree with them as well . 
there has to be a line that is drawn on what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior . 
most of our criminal code , as well as certain types of civil provisions that contain penalties , do draw the line and have a clear demarcation of what goes over the line and thus should be punished . 
i think one of the reasons why we are here today as a result of both the johnson and eichman decisions was exemplified by a decision of the supreme court of my home state of wisconsin on april 9 , 1998 , in the case of state of wisconsin v. matthew janssen . 
mr. janssen was prosecuted for flag desecration because he defecated on the american flag . 
then he left a note saying why he did it , which contained a political expression . 
using the precedent that was set by the supreme court in the johnson and eichman cases , the wisconsin supreme court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the prosecution against mr. janssen and wrote an extensive decision that basically agrees with the arguments that were advanced by the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 . 
but the last paragraph of that decision , i think , is very important ; and i am going to read it into the record . 
the wisconsin supreme court through justice john wilcox said : `` but in the end , to paraphrase justice frankfurter , we must take solace in the fact that as members of this court we are not justified in writing our private notions of policy into the constitution , no matter how deeply we may cherish them or how mischievous we may deem their disregard , '' quoting the barnette case with justice frankfurter dissenting . 
the supreme court of wisconsin concluded by saying : `` if it is the will of the people in this country to amend the united states constitution in order to protect our nation 's symbol , it must be done through normal political channels. '' today , we are doing it through those normal political channels . 
that is why this amendment should be approved . 
mr. speaker , i yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from ohio ( mr. chabot ) xz4000710 , the chairman of the subcommittee on the constitution . 
