Thread: MEXICAN FLAGS FOR 2NDAMENDSIS

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Title I, Chapter 4, Section 7(c) of the US Flag Code reads: "No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof."

So why hasn't this law been enforced (besides the argument that none of our laws are enforced)? As always I will play devil's advocate. This law looks like a restriction on the First Amendment and will not stand constitutional scrutiny.

I don't know why its not being enforced. As for the first amendment, I would have to disagree with you as flying a flag is self-expression, not freedom of speech. No where in the first amendment is flag flying mentioned.

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

Speech is the ticket but is not limited to verbal words out of your mouth. Speech falls in one of two categories: content based, and content neutral. Expression, or symbolic action falls within content neutral speech. If the First Amendment was limited to what we traditionally consider speech, flag burning would be illegal. While these individuals have raised their flag
above that of the U.S. my guess is these individuals are trying to state through their conduct that Mexico is superior, or they have pride in their home country. If this is true, its primary purpose is to promote an idea which would hit at the essence of what the First Amendment is all about.

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Title I, Chapter 4, Section 7(c) of the US Flag Code reads: "No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof."

So why hasn't this law been enforced (besides the argument that none of our laws are enforced)? As always I will play devil's advocate. This law looks like a restriction on the First Amendment and will not stand constitutional scrutiny.

I don't know why its not being enforced. As for the first amendment, I would have to disagree with you as flying a flag is self-expression, not freedom of speech. No where in the first amendment is flag flying mentioned.

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

Speech is the ticket but is not limited to verbal words out of your mouth. Speech falls in one of two categories: content based, and content neutral. Expression, or symbolic action falls within content neutral speech. If the First Amendment was limited to what we traditionally consider speech, flag burning would be illegal. While these individuals have raised their flag
above that of the U.S. my guess is these individuals are trying to state through their conduct that Mexico is superior, or they have pride in their home country. If this is true, its primary purpose is to promote an idea which would hit at the essence of what the First Amendment is all about.

Gabriel, the flying of the flag is not simple speech. The flying of a flag is a statement of territorial sovereignty of the soil over which it is flown (in the case of political flags, as of nations or states) or of diplomatic goodwill (as when the flag of a guest nation is flown at a treaty conference or other international conclave). In the latter case, the flag is voluntarily flown by the host nation as a courtesy to the visiting nation. The removal of the flag of a nation or state and its replacement with a foreign or hostile flag, or the flying of a foreign flag above or to the right of the flag of the nation upon whose soil the flags fly, is a statement of conquest and a long-recognized casus belli. The exclusive flying of and/or honoring of the flag of a foreign state is tantmount to insurrection, which may be dealt with pursuant existing law by the relevant executive authority. In this country, the flying of the flag of a land of ancestry has generally been deemed acceptable so long as no flag of a foreign state is flown above, to the right of, or in place of the U.S. flag.

Not all speech is permitted under the broad doctrine of "freedom of speech" at any rate. For example, speech likely to promote panic or violence is actionable and subject to restriction. Obscene speech may be prohibited in public places. Speech advocating insurrection or the overthrow of the government or local authority is likewise not protected under the aegis of free speech. Claim of foreign sovereignty over public or private lands within the several states of the US is tantamount to insurrection or treason, as are threats to claim privately held domestic lands without due compensation and the agreement of the landholder insurrection.

If people want to look at a Mexican flag and not an American flag, they are in the wrong damned country and should exit the US posthaste. So far there has not been any serious violence over the numerous blatant acts of domestic insurrection and conspiracy, but I would not count on that to continue. Revolutionaries are rarely satisfied with their gains until they are met with sound resistance, and Americans will only take so much before they begin offering that resistance. The relative lack of education and sophistication of invading foreign interlopers would tend to suggest that they will not know when enough is enough, and therefore will continue to push Americans past the breaking point.

Crockett's Ghost - That's the best explanation I've ever heard.

Originally Posted by Faye

Crockett's Ghost - That's the best explanation I've ever heard.

Thanks, Faye. The problem that we have in this country is that miscreants and their apologists are always trying to find loopholes in the letter of the law rather than applying the reason that this nation's founders predicated our legal system upon to comprehend the spirit of the law and its historical application.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Title I, Chapter 4, Section 7(c) of the US Flag Code reads: "No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof."

So why hasn't this law been enforced (besides the argument that none of our laws are enforced)? As always I will play devil's advocate. This law looks like a restriction on the First Amendment and will not stand constitutional scrutiny.

I don't know why its not being enforced. As for the first amendment, I would have to disagree with you as flying a flag is self-expression, not freedom of speech. No where in the first amendment is flag flying mentioned.

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

Speech is the ticket but is not limited to verbal words out of your mouth. Speech falls in one of two categories: content based, and content neutral. Expression, or symbolic action falls within content neutral speech. If the First Amendment was limited to what we traditionally consider speech, flag burning would be illegal. While these individuals have raised their flag
above that of the U.S. my guess is these individuals are trying to state through their conduct that Mexico is superior, or they have pride in their home country. If this is true, its primary purpose is to promote an idea which would hit at the essence of what the First Amendment is all about.

Not all speech is permitted under the broad doctrine of "freedom of speech" at any rate. For example, speech likely to promote panic or violence is actionable and subject to restriction. Obscene speech may be prohibited in public places. Speech advocating insurrection or the overthrow of the government or local authority is likewise not protected under the aegis of free speech. Claim of foreign sovereignty over public or private lands within the several states of the US is tantamount to insurrection or treason, as are threats to claim privately held domestic lands without due compensation and the agreement of the landholder insurrection..

You are comparing apples to oranges here. What you are referring to above is Content Based Speech. And you are correct, there are restrictions such as Criminal Advocacy, Fighting Words, Defamation, Hostile Audiences, Obscene Language, and Commercial Speech (False Advertisement. We are talking about flying a flag, symbolic action.

Originally Posted by Faye

mkfarnam - well, I got a good man right off the bat but it took a long time to train him. I wouldn't do it again.

I know what you mean Faye,
I got my hubby 22 years ago when we were both kiddies!
He was a lot of work but he is perfect now! No way I would give him up now and no way would I ever start over! I am way to worn out! lol

Being in calif, I see the mexican flags at the auto malls, along with the red green and white ballons everywhere. I also see the unsightly buildings either entirely painted red or green or nasty white washed with green and red trims. I refuse to patronize any business that pander to the Mexican colors. You want my green backs? Show the red, white and blue.
I am sick of my state looking like a Mexican flea Market.

The rules for flying the AMERICAN FLAG, if memory serves, have been in existance since the founding of OUR country.

These rules are set in precedence, used by every embassy and any other foreign entity allowed to exist on our territory.

These rules are also steeped deep in U.S. Military history.

Common sense would certainly tell us that it's awfully strange that the 1st amendment would only now be used for this strawman argument.

It's perfectly within every nation's right to demand that their FLAG be honored within the pervue of a certain set rules.

The 1st amendment allows for the burning of flags, including the MEX RAG FLAG but it doesn't have anything to do with the DISPLAYING of Old Glory.

Be that as it may, the flying of the mex rag over MY FLAG is an insult.
I take that personally, having had my family's blood layed down for this nation and our freedom, and will be focused on being sure that every single congress person and senator, traitor though he or she may be, gets a photo of this DISRESPECTFUL ACTION BY ILLEGAL ALIENS AND THIER ILK.

Let it be known in public, that the DESECRATION of our AMERICAN SOIL will not stand any longer. The disrespect of MY FLAG is merely a symbol of the cancer and disease that has infested our country.

It is the perfect example of RACISM setting it's roots in the very nation that created the CIVIL RIGHTS.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Title I, Chapter 4, Section 7(c) of the US Flag Code reads: "No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof."

So why hasn't this law been enforced (besides the argument that none of our laws are enforced)? As always I will play devil's advocate. This law looks like a restriction on the First Amendment and will not stand constitutional scrutiny.

I don't know why its not being enforced. As for the first amendment, I would have to disagree with you as flying a flag is self-expression, not freedom of speech. No where in the first amendment is flag flying mentioned.

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

Speech is the ticket but is not limited to verbal words out of your mouth. Speech falls in one of two categories: content based, and content neutral. Expression, or symbolic action falls within content neutral speech. If the First Amendment was limited to what we traditionally consider speech, flag burning would be illegal. While these individuals have raised their flag
above that of the U.S. my guess is these individuals are trying to state through their conduct that Mexico is superior, or they have pride in their home country. If this is true, its primary purpose is to promote an idea which would hit at the essence of what the First Amendment is all about.

Gabriel, the flying of the flag is not simple speech. The flying of a flag is a statement of territorial sovereignty of the soil over which it is flown (in the case of political flags, as of nations or states) or of diplomatic goodwill (as when the flag of a guest nation is flown at a treaty conference or other international conclave). In the latter case, the flag is voluntarily flown by the host nation as a courtesy to the visiting nation. The removal of the flag of a nation or state and its replacement with a foreign or hostile flag, or the flying of a foreign flag above or to the right of the flag of the nation upon whose soil the flags fly, is a statement of conquest and a long-recognized casus belli. The exclusive flying of and/or honoring of the flag of a foreign state is tantmount to insurrection, which may be dealt with pursuant existing law by the relevant executive authority. In this country, the flying of the flag of a land of ancestry has generally been deemed acceptable so long as no flag of a foreign state is flown above, to the right of, or in place of the U.S. flag.

If people want to look at a Mexican flag and not an American flag, they are in the wrong damned country and should exit the US posthaste. So far there has not been any serious violence over the numerous blatant acts of domestic insurrection and conspiracy, but I would not count on that to continue. Revolutionaries are rarely satisfied with their gains until they are met with sound resistance, and Americans will only take so much before they begin offering that resistance. The relative lack of education and sophistication of invading foreign interlopers would tend to suggest that they will not know when enough is enough, and therefore will continue to push Americans past the breaking point.

Texas v. Johnson 491 U.S. 397
Justice Brennan giving the majority opinion: While the government may regulate expressive conduct, the regulations must be for reasons separate from the content of such conduct. Here, the State offers two such rationales. The first is to prevent breaches of the peace. This rationale is insufficient for it does not automatically follow that conduct such as that engaged in by Johnson leads to breaches of the peace. Indeed, in the demonstration in question, no violence erupted. The second rationale is the preservation of the flag as a symbol of national unity. While this is a laudable goal, it is a political issue which
implicates quite clearly the First Amendment. Such regulation cannot be
separated from the stifling of expression.

United States v. Eichman 496 U.S. 310
While burning the flag might provoke violence, its primary purpose is to communicate an idea, a protected activity. The Government's (P) assertion that it is necessary to preserve the integrity of the flag as a national symbol is unavailing; this makes the Act all the more an abridgement of expression, which is inconsistent with the First Amendment.

While these two cases deal with flag burning, your point that flying of a foreign flag will lead to violence or insurrection as a justification for the suppression of free ideas has been addressed and defeated by the Supreme Court in two landmark cases. Furthermore, foreign flags, the Nazi Flag, and the flags of unpopular political groups are flown on a daily basis without issue or alarm. Do you have legal precedent to support your statements or is this pure opinion?[/b]

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Faye

Crockett's Ghost - That's the best explanation I've ever heard.

Thanks, Faye. The problem that we have in this country is that miscreants and their apologists are always trying to find loopholes in the letter of the law rather than applying the reason that this nation's founders predicated our legal system upon to comprehend the spirit of the law and its historical application.

Loopholes are called the law. Laws are written such that they allow for exceptions and if the exceptions are deemed invalid the law is changed to reflect such invalidation. i.e. Mr. Smith got away with murdering his wife because of a loophole in the law called self-defense.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

The rules for flying the AMERICAN FLAG, if memory serves, have been in existance since the founding of OUR country.

These rules are set in precedence, used by every embassy and any other foreign entity allowed to exist on our territory.

These rules are also steeped deep in U.S. Military history.

Common sense would certainly tell us that it's awfully strange that the 1st amendment would only now be used for this strawman argument.

It's perfectly within every nation's right to demand that their FLAG be honored within the pervue of a certain set rules.

The 1st amendment allows for the burning of flags, including the MEX RAG FLAG but it doesn't have anything to do with the DISPLAYING of Old Glory.

Be that as it may, the flying of the mex rag over MY FLAG is an insult.
I take that personally, having had my family's blood layed down for this nation and our freedom, and will be focused on being sure that every single congress person and senator, traitor though he or she may be, gets a photo of this DISRESPECTFUL ACTION BY ILLEGAL ALIENS AND THIER ILK.

Let it be known in public, that the DESECRATION of our AMERICAN SOIL will not stand any longer. The disrespect of MY FLAG is merely a symbol of the cancer and disease that has infested our country.

It is the perfect example of RACISM setting it's roots in the very nation that created the CIVIL RIGHTS.

I agree that no other flag should be raised above the U.S. flag, but my opinion matters little under the scrutiny of the Constitution. Everyone loves to base their arguments on the Constitution when it's convenient, but don't seem to respect it when they are opposed to the law.