Help with English composition

I can someone read this essay and analysis it. Need read this make specific references to the sample persuasive paper and break down the argument by distinct segments described in the Toulmin Analysis document (claim, evidence, warrant, backing, rebuttal, qualifier). This is the essay. 

To Burn or Not to Burn:

Should Flag Burning be Legal?

Freedom of speech and
expression is a right given to all Americans in the First Amendment of the
Constitution. It is a difficult concept to embrace when individuals are faced
with ideas they oppose. In this kind of situation, the protection guaranteed to
American citizens 
becomes even more important. The First Amendment was designed not only
to protect the freedom to express ideas and sentiments with which one agrees
but also the ideas and sentiments with which one disagrees. It is for precisely
this reason that the government should maintain the right of individuals to
express their dissatisfaction with the policies of the government through the
act of flag burning and not amend the Constitution to make such an act illegal.
The first reason why the government should not ban flag burning is that it is a
form of expression that is covered by the right to free speech. The First
Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law …
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances” (Legal Information Institute, 1992a). This amendment guarantees
American citizens the right to express their dissatisfaction with the policies
of the government without fear of consequences, including arrest, so long as
the demonstration does not violate laws. The act of flag burning is a means to
express this kind of dissatisfaction. To make a law prohibiting this means of
expressing grievances would not only inhibit free speech but take away a means
of petitioning the government to address grievances. Another reason why flag
burning should be allowed is that the counter-argument that flag burning
somehow constitutes treason is groundless. Some may argue that flag burning
should not be protected speech, that such an offense should be considered
treasonous. They feel that the American flag is a symbol of this country that
should be maintained and protected. It is true that the flag is a symbol of
this nation; it is because of its status as a national symbol that the burning
of the flag holds so much power in representing dissatisfaction with the
nation’s policies. However, should such an act be considered treason? According
to the Constitution, treason is defined as consisting “only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort” (Legal
Information Institute, 1992b). Simply by applying this definition of treason to
the act of flag burning, unless an amendment were added to the Constitution to
redefine treason, flag burning would not qualify as a treasonous act and should
therefore remain a legal means of expressing dissatisfaction with the
government. A final reason why flag burning should not be banned is that it is
an act that allows marginalized or minority groups a means of expression—and
the right for even those in the minority to be heard is a fundamental American
principle. Freedom of speech is an important right guaranteed to all Americans.
The difficulty in protecting freedom of speech is not in protecting the speech
with which one agrees but protecting the speech with which one does not. This
is why it is vital that freedom of speech is protected for all speech. The
dissident voice can help maintain the balance of power by expressing the
sentiments of the minority. Critics claim that expressing sentiments in this
way is somehow unpatriotic. This is an unfair statement. It has been argued by
some, including those in Congress, that protecting the right of Americans to
burn the flag is in fact an act of patriotism (Paul, 2003). Patriotism is
defined as the love of or devotion to one’s country. What is more patriotic
than protecting the rights of all American citizens to express their own point
of view on the direction of this nation’s policies in any peaceful means
necessary? It is clear that protecting all forms of speech is an act of
expressing one’s patriotism no matter how difficult this may be.4

FLAG BURNING

In conclusion, the
right of Americans to express dissent with the government through the act of
flag burning should be protected. It is a fundamental right guaranteed by the First
Amendment of the Constitution. Any arguments that such an act is somehow
treasonous or unpatriotic are not only unfair but untrue. It is for this reason
that Congress should not add an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw flag
burning.