Frankly, the whole debate should end and begin on one point-- the official, proper way to "decommission" and dispose of an American flag is to burn it.
Every year Boy Scouts and veterans groups burn thousands of flags. In some places veterans burning a thousand U.S. flags is an annual tradition-- on Flag Day. If a Boy Scout burns a flag he is "decommissioning" it, if a political protester burns a flag it is desecration. However, the actual act of destroying the flag and "desecrating" it is the same, however, the "thoughts" and intentions of the person doing the burning is what matters. Ipso faco, the flag burning ban is an attempt to ban expression, namely unpopular political speech. If that isn't giving the finger to our forefathers I don't know what is.
What truly angers me about the flag burning amendment is that I don't feel the flag truly represents "America" in the generic sense, it actually represents the American government. So the way I interpret the flag amendment is that politicians are trying to write into the constitution that people should get in trouble (although the punishment is yet undetermined) for expressing anger or rage at the government, which is why the flag amendment is a self-serving tool for politicians on so many levels, used to reinforce that America and its government are one in the same.
One other thing, it's also a needless solution in search of a nonexistant problem. No one even burns the flag in protest anymore. I've been to a lot of "radical" protests in my day and I've never once seen anyone burn the American flag. Flga burning might be an image that stirs emotions but it's not one anyone has seen in quite a long time.
So, yeah, screw you Dianne Feinstein. It looks like Jello Biafra was right about you all along, even back in 1979.