The impassioned debate over Americans’ right to burn the U.S. flag returned to the forefront of the national agenda yesterday, as the House approved a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to ban desecration of the flag.

For the first time since the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that burning the American flag was protected speech under the First Amendment, there glimmered a possibility yesterday that enough senators would vote to circumvent the high court and adopt the amendment.

The Republican-controlled Senate is expected to vote next month on the constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds vote to send it to the states.

Supporters of the amendment hailed the vote as an important victory toward protecting what they view as a sacred symbol of America, claiming that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor granting the flag constitutional protection. They said increased patriotism after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and Republican gains in the Senate could help the amendment’s chances in that body.

“The flag is our national treasure,” said Marty Justis, executive director of the Citizens Flag Alliance, an Indiana-based lobbying group that has spent $15 million since 1994 promoting anti-flag burning laws. “It’s our one unifying symbol of nationhood and national unity.”

Opponents of the amendment say any law prohibiting burning the flag is tantamount to a violation of the free speech rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The House voted 286-130 yesterday in favor of the amendment, with eight more votes than necessary for approval. In the New York delegation, 15 lawmakers voted for the amendment, while 13 voted in opposition. One lawmaker, Charles Rangel, a Democrat of Harlem, did not vote. New York democratic mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner voted against the amendment. Senator Clinton, a likely Democratic presidential candidate and one of only a handful of Senate lawmakers whose views on the issue were little known, came out yesterday against amending the Constitution. Charles Schumer, the senior Democratic senator from New York, has previously voted against such amendments.

In a statement, Mrs. Clinton said she found flag burning to be despicable but said she opposed taking such drastic action to outlaw an act that she said rarely occurs in America. “As offensive as each act of desecration is,” Mrs. Clinton said,”amending our Constitution should be a rare and extreme measure, which we should only resort to when all legislative options have been exhausted.”

Two other senators who had not taken a public position on the amendment or had no voting record on it – Senators Cantwell, a Democrat of Washington, and Mark Pryor, a Democrat of Arkansas – came out against the amendment yesterday, according to the Associated Press, which reported that 35 senators were against the proposal.

Mr. Justis said Jon Corzine, a Democrat of New Jersey, is another senator he was concentrating on for support.

In a telephone interview with The New York Sun, a prominent New York City lawyer known for taking a broad view of the First Amendment, Floyd Abrams, said the effect on free speech would be “dire” if the Senate adopts the amendment.

“If this amendment were to be adopted, it would be the first time in American history that the Constitution would have been amended to limit the freedom of speech,” Mr. Abrams said.

“We don’t have a flag-burning problem in America, as far as I know,” Mr. Abrams said with a chuckle. “There are no flags being burned as we speak. The idea of amending the Constitution to deal with a nonexistent problem is absurd.”

If the Senate approves the amendment, it would then go to state legislatures for a vote. Two-thirds of both chambers in at least 38 legislatures – three-fourths of the states – must pass the amendment within seven years for it to be ratified. If that happens, the Supreme Court ruling would be overturned, and Congress could then decide whether to criminalize flag desecration. The president, of course, could veto such a bill.

Since Republicans took over the House in 1994, the House passage of a flag-burning amendment – usually coinciding with Flag Day – became a vigorously debated but fruitless tradition. The House has passed similar amendments in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003, and each time the Senate either soundly rejected the amendment the following year or it never came to the floor.

The debate over flag-burning flared after Gregory Johnson burned the star-spangled banner at a demonstration outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. A Texas court convicted Mr. Johnson on charges of desecrating a venerated object. But in 1989, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reverse the conviction, ruling that Mr. Johnson’s burning of the flag constituted an “expressive action” protected under the First Amendment.

The high court’s decision effectively invalidated a 1968 federal statute and laws in 48 states and the District of Columbia that barred flag desecration. In response to the ruling, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which made desecration of the flag a federal crime. Convicted flag-burners were subject to a year in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Almost immediately, activists challenged the law. One man, Shawn Eichman, set several American banners ablaze on the steps of the Capitol building.

The Justice Department brought charges against Mr. Eichman, but the Supreme Court voted in 1990 – again by a 5-4 margin – to dismiss the charges and void the Flag Protection Act.

That ruling prompted a nationwide movement to pass a constitutional amendment barring flag-burning. In 2000, 63 senators voted for the constitutional change – four votes short of the requisite two-thirds majority.

The proposed amendment is, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”