mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. speaker , i am going to filibuster because i am waiting for some members who would like to speak on this . 
let me respond to the comments of the gentleman from virginia ( mr. goodlatte ) that the supreme court has amended the bill of rights on a number of occasions . 
it did not amend the language of the bill of rights . 
it amended the interpretation of the bill of rights . 
on a number of those occasions i have been really unhappy about the way the supreme court ruled and took away a right that i thought i had . 
i suspect if there were ever anybody in this institution who would be , should be railing against the supreme court , either the current supreme court or supreme courts throughout history , it might be the members of the congressional black caucus who would have the highest standing and right to do that because in a number of cases the supreme court has ruled in ways that were absolutely counter to our interest . 
i just want my colleagues to understand that this document that our drafters crafted for us has survived so much the test of time , the comings and goings of members of the supreme court differing in interpretations , as the gentleman from virginia ( mr. goodlatte ) said . 
if you want to look at it , they rewrote the bill of rights , but never changed the words . 
i do not think that every time you get a supreme court decision that you disagree with in this country the way to resolve or to express your disagreement is to come to the congress of the united states and propose that we amend the entire constitutional framework that we are operating under . 
i do not think that is the way to do it . 
sometimes you win ; sometimes you lose . 
sometimes you have a progressive supreme court ; sometimes you have a conservative supreme court . 
that does not mean that you do not go back and try to statutorily do what you think that you need to do to amend statutes , but amending our constitution is an entirely different thing . 
so one side of me says this is not a good idea to be amending the constitution in this way . 
the other side of me really says this amendment has been made out to be a lot more than it really is because by saying that congress can pass a statute that prohibits the physical desecration of the flag does not give us any more authority than we now have . 
we can pass a statute right now that prohibits the physical desecration of the flag . 
the question is what would the united states supreme court say about that statute once it worked its way through the process and up to the united states supreme court . 
and if we pass this amendment , having amended for the first time in 200 years our bill of rights , gone through the whole process , the supreme court is still going to have the same right to do that . 
this is a great , great discussion vehicle . 
as i said , i used to resent coming here and engaging in this debate every year or every 2 years . 
it always comes right before july 4. somebody is always trying to make a political point . 
democrats used to be saying republicans were unpatriotic . 
republicans used to be saying democrats are unpatriotic . 
now people are going whichever way they want to go . 
this is not a republican or a democratic amendment ; this is a constitutional amendment . 
democrats and republicans have to exist in our constitutional framework . 
we have got to operate within our system . 
that is what i think this is about . 
mr. speaker , i yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from alabama ( mr. davis ) xz4000921 . 
