The Senate Majority Leader, who in 2006 declared that flag desecration was an act of physical aggression that did not take away free speech because it provided nothing constructive . Diane Feinstein (D-CA), also in favor of passing the amendment, states that “Granting protection to this powerful symbol of America would be an important, but limited, change to the Constitution. It is a change that would leave both the flag and free speech safe” (“It would amend the Constitution of the United States…”, 2008). In accordance with both of these statements, it is also important to note that free speech will not be well maintained without a sense of community which is what this amendment would provide, thus proving that the 1989 ruling was wrong. Those who disagree with the ruling in Texas v. Johnson also point out that the vote to quash the prosecution was very close, being 5-4. While there are many people in favor of passing and protecting our flag, the debate continues as to whether or not it will conflict with the First Amendment and free speech. John Glenn, a former senator and astronaut, supports the 1989 ruling because he believes it uses free speech when someone desecrates the flag, and that it's generally "not a big deal" in the United States ("Amending the Constitution of the United States ...”, 2008). Despite