I oppose via freedom of expression and free speech. I may not like what you do or say, but I'll defend your right to say/do it.
Constitutional Amendment - Grants Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. More: beta.congress.gov.
When flag burning was illegal, protesters could count on media attention many of whom would show up to see what the authorities would do. When the Court ruled against those laws, via the 1st Amendment, the number of flag burnings declined because the media didn't care anymore.
All kinds of "busy work time" to come up with nonsense and yet can't quite seem to get the real work done...
Freedom of expression, as guaranteed under the Constitution Mr. Bachus... You know, the Constitution, that "scrap of paper" you swore an oath to uphold?
I've got a different approach to the "flag-burning" issue, as a constitutional amendment. Instead of adopting an amendment that is just about the flag, adopt an amendment to say that Freedom of Speech does NOT protect physically destructive activities, such as burning things. That takes care of flag-burning AND cross-burning (see R.A.V. v. St. Paul), and it addresses what I believe to be the true underlying problem of "interpreting" the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment - that what the First Amendment principle is about is protecting WORDS, not actions, and that it certainly does not protect physically destructive actions. Face it, when somebody sets a flag on fire, they have not SAID anything. We don't know why they did it unless and until they SPEAK. And the act of setting a flag or a cross on fire literally destroys the objects. The objects are reduced to ashes. No new knowledge is imparted. The act of burning a cross instills fear! (Does that not "hurt"?)