I think I’m in Jonah’s camp–I don’t have strong feelings about the amendment. I lean against it: I’d prefer a federal statute stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over state governments’ bans on flag burning.

W/r/t your reader’s complaints:

1) As for the amendment’s being “unconstitutional” as things stand now–well, that depends on whether the Supreme Court got this issue right. Many of the proponents of the ban think it didn’t. Anyway, isn’t the whole point of constitutional amendments to, um, change the Constitution?

2) “The triumph of emotion over reason”–the emailer certainly seems to be in the grip of strong emotions, which is fine, but demonstrates that no side of this controversy has a monopoly on them. His over-the-top declaration that no supporter of the amendment deserves either campaign contributions or votes. This doesn’t strike me as the sort of thing that ought to inspire single-issue voter. Maybe that’s not a triumph of emotion over reason, but it is a triumph of emotion over sound judgment.

3) I don’t see why it would be especially difficult to write a law. The amendment would empower Congress to prohibit flag-burning. Congress could then codify the particulars, and could amend them if they led to absurd results.