Thread: MEXICAN FLAGS FOR 2NDAMENDSIS

[quote=Gabriel]

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by "Rockfish":3bn99ssx

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][/quote:3bn99ssx]

These cases relate to American citizens BURNING the flag, not to FOREIGN NATIONALS hoisting a FOREIGN FLAG, which is an acti of hostility tantamount to insurrection.

And you accuse ME of comparing apples to oranges!

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.

That's a very interesting comment, Gabriel.

We have the legislators who's many acts are 'unconstitutional.'

We have ILLEGAL ALIENS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS who commit "unconstitutional" actions.

We have the U.N. committing 'unconstitutional' actions on American soil.

So...............what's your point?

Our FLAG and the rules set in precedent concerning flying OUR FLAG have nothing to do with the CONSTITUTION, if memory serves.

It's a strawman argument and one that I would very much like you to present to our Marines & Soldiers as they arrive home from Iraq and the Stan.
I do believe that they will be able to answer your concerns &/or questions in a more succinct manner than I.

Originally Posted by Gabriel

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.

Don't try to pull that relativist crap on me, Gabby. Just because you pull some irrelevant bogus analogy out of your arse doesn't mean that it has any bearing on what we are discussing.

I realize that your foreign and hostile attitude wishes to justify foreign nationals raising their foreign banner over the US, but it ain't gonna fly. Furthermore, if the government continues to refuse to defend the states against foreign invasion as REQUIRED under Article 4, Section 4, then the citizens will begin protecting their lands themselves. Keep stirring the pot and it's liable to blow up in your alien face.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

It's a strawman argument and one that I would very much like you to present to our Marines & Soldiers as they arrive home from Iraq and the Stan.
I do believe that they will be able to answer your concerns &/or questions in a more succinct manner than I.

That includes those returning in coffins draped with AMERICAN flags.

Originally Posted by Gabriel

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.

What we are discussing here is a foreign invasion force flying its foreign banner on US soil. It is PRECISELY this sort of invasion that the militia (the sum total of armed adult male citizens) is meant to repel. At least the enemy is giving its location away under its foreign banner.

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?

You obviously had difficulty in understand this particular discussion, GABRIEL.

We are not talking about foreign flags being flown.

We are talking about the manner in which they are being flown.

That is an apple to orange argument. Or perhaps it is meant to be a diversion from the facts?



[/b]

Gabriel seems to be fond of the straw man.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Gabriel seems to be fond of the straw man.

Gabriel seems not to mind that ILLEGALS break our Constitutional Laws but he expects Americans to accept the tripe he spews.

What Gabriel doesn't understand is that Americans are not so sleepy anymore. What he hasn't been able to understand is that Americans are slow to rise but are the worst nightmare to be encountered when they do.

What Gabriel should understand is that the time is fast approaching and the lines are being drawn.

Something as simple as the DISRESPECT of our FLAG by a bunch of uncouth, filthy, stupid, manipulated, law breaking invaders could be the tipping point.

And Gabriel might be forced to run hell bent for the border going south as fast as his little legs can take him, dragging a cart filled with his law books.

Apples to oranges...you are right for every issue that arises under our courts there is precedent . The only reason those cases are used is because Crock (your name is fitting) argued that the fear of insurrection was justication for the suppression of ideas and as proven with precedent about the fear of insurrection over not the mere flying of a foreign flag above the U.S. flag, but the DESTRUCTION of the U.S. flag, the Supreme Court found this was not compelling. So in your eyes the flying of a foreign flag above the U.S. flag is more disrepectful than the destruction of the flag?
Again, like I issued the challenge about public forums where the police gave advice to those living in the city (arguably illegals) in a church and some of you stated it was inappropriate yet never did anything about it, I issue the same challenge: file a claim about this and see how it comes out if you are so correct and are so adamant about your cause. 2ndamend, I believe some on the forum already asked you to act, so act. Again, when the Constitution fits wear it.
I am for following the law, as long as it is Constituional within our justice system.

Originally Posted by ProudAmericanFamily

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

It's a strawman argument and one that I would very much like you to present to our Marines & Soldiers as they arrive home from Iraq and the Stan.
I do believe that they will be able to answer your concerns &/or questions in a more succinct manner than I.

That includes those returning in coffins draped with AMERICAN flags.

I thought that was the reasons those soldiers died, so we could have our freedoms, including the freedom to fly any flags we want above any other flags we choose.