First, US Code has been at odds with many parts of the Constitution for decades.
Secondly, and most importantly, the 1st Amendment debates and passage was about the freedom of political, ideological, and theological speech. The misnomer of "separation of State and Church" has always burned my hide, and I'm not a religious person.
However, I would agree with those who say burning the US Flag is an expression of free speech, as abhorrent it is to me. That is a political expression. Political, ideological, and even theological expression was the original INTENT of the FF's. I always go by their intent and not what some judge misinterprets or expands it to fit his/her leanings.
I've forgotten more about the FF's original intent than most people have ever known. Stolen Valor was definitely NOT in their debates nor intent to be included in the 1st Amendment nor anywhere else in the Constitution. Like I said, the expansion and distortion of the Constitution and the Amendments has been an on-going corruption of original intent. Show me where I'm wrong.
Case in point: Do you believe that the FF's would have approved a "tax" on the new Union if they did not buy a private company's product? - think Obamacare. Countless USSC decisions have been contrary to original intent. Yet, because of their decisions, our liberties, values, and and many long established traditions has been distorted or eliminated.
Do you think the FF's believed that killing babies in the womb was a Constitutional right? Don't even start me on the "Pursuit of Happiness" clause in the DOI which isn't even part of the lawful Constitution. Then there is the "Commerce Clause" which is used for every socialist agenda they can think of.
Yes, the Founders provided the avenue to adjust the Constitution as our society needed. Unfortunately, amendments being such a complex process our legislative, executive, AND judicial branches make up powers they were never intended to have as a by-pass.
“Secondly, and most importantly, the 1st Amendment debates and passage was about the freedom of political, ideological, and theological speech.”
No, I’m sorry, but that just isn’t true. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and expression, almost without qualification. The courts have ruled specifically that government cannot restrict the content of that expression unless there is some crucial state interest at stake, such as national security. The government simply has no leg to stand on if it wanted to decide that some speech wasn’t protected because it wasn’t “political, ideological or theological”, because that would be a judgement as to the content of the speech, which would fail a strict scrutiny test.
“Political, ideological, and even theological expression was the original INTENT of the FF’s.”
Prove it, then. If they had intended to limit the freedom in that way, I have no doubt they would have phrased the amendment to specify that, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that this was their only intention for the 1st Amendment speech protections.
“Stolen Valor was definitely NOT in their debates nor intent to be included in the 1st Amendment nor anywhere else in the Constitution.”
Probably because they included blanket protections for speech and expression, so they wouldn’t have had any need to discuss specific circumstances like that.
“Show me where I’m wrong.”
No, you are proposing that the plain language of the Constitution shouldn’t mean what it says, and that centuries of jurisprudence are wrong, so the onus is on you to prove your contention.
Your other questions about original intent are irrelevant, because you have yet to demonstrate that the founders’ original intent for freedom of speech and expression was indeed as limited as you propose. You can’t simply assert “that wasn’t their intent”, you must demonstrate it.