About the boys with the flag shirts and why they were wrong at the least

[SargeUNN]

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagcode.htm
United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1
§8. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

a.The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
b.The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
c.The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
:redbox:d.The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

[TexasObserver]

1. That's totally irrelevant.

First, the code is advisory, not mandatory, and has no applicability to civilians who want to wear the flag any way they choose.

Second, it's a free speech issue, not a flag rule issue.

Third, you're free to follow those rules. You're not free to impose them on anyone else.

Fourth, they should have been allowed to wear the flag, and if that led to discussions about the conflict, everyone could explain how they feel, and it would be a chance to address the issues, instead of act as if they aren't there.

[SargeUNN]

3. actually I was taught this in the military

the code is also part of the law, that is why John McCain was allowed to run for president because the U.S.Code covered it because it was in dispute so the code was adopted. You are incorrect. Sorry.

[TexasObserver]

7. I was in the military, too, but this is not a military matter.

When you're in the military, you do as the military requires.

The code is not mandatory. Outside the military, there is no one who can enforce the code provisions, and the military can only do it because it's part of their rules of flag conduct.

You simply don't know what you're talking about when you say the law requires the things laid out in the Code. The law does not require that of citizens, period.

[SargeUNN]

11. From Wikipedia defining USC

The United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States. It contains 50 titles and is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives.

[TexasObserver]

13. I know what the US Code is.

I am a lawyer. I have read the code for over three decades and must understand it. The Code provision you quoted is ADVISORY.

[SargeUNN]

18. I am just pasting what the code said and defination

it is up to you lawyers to fight it in the court. I am simply posting what it says and you take care of it in the courts. Personally I know bad lawyers, good lawyers and so so lawyers and everyone one of them has been right and been wrong so just being a lawyer doesn't make you right or you are the one that is not so informed.

[TexasObserver]

24. Why don't you call the FBI and tell them you want to report flag misuse?

You cannot go out in public without seeing the flag displayed in violation of the code, mostly by people who think they're being patriotic. Why don't you start trying to make a citizen's arrest on them? I would love to be there and hear you explain your theory of the code and its enforceability.

Better yet, send it in a letter to editor, so everyone can know you don't understand the advisory nature of that code provision.

[SargeUNN]

23. Lawyer read this

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode

United States Code: About
The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States based on what is printed in the Statutes at Large. It is divided by broad subjects into 50 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Since 1926, the United States Code has been published every six years. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.

GPO Access contains the 2006, 2000, and 1994 editions of the U.S. Code, plus annual supplements. Files are available in ASCII Text from the 1994 edition forward and Portable Document Format (PDF) from the 2006 edition forward.

The information contained in the U.S. Code on GPO Access has been provided to GPO by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. While every effort has been made to ensure that the U.S. Code database on GPO Access is accurate, those using it for legal research should verify their results against the printed version of the United States Code available through the Government Printing Office.

GPO recognizes that other U.S. Code products exist that are not available from the U.S. Government Printing Office. Among these are the U.S.C.A. (U.S. Code Annotated) and the U.S.C.S. (U.S. Code Service). The U.S.C.A. and U.S.C.S. contain everything that is printed in the U.S. Code but also include annotations to case law relevant to the particular statute. While these publications may be more current, they are not the official version of the U.S. Code that is published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.

NOTE: Of the 50 titles, only 23 have been enacted into positive (statutory) law. These titles are 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49. When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern.

The U.S. Code does not include regulations issued by executive branch agencies, decisions of the Federal courts, treaties, or laws enacted by State or local governments. Regulations issued by executive branch agencies are available in the Code of Federal Regulations. Proposed and recently adopted regulations may be found in the Federal Register.

[TexasObserver]

29. Yeah, so what?

Why don't you find a case the past 20 years of someone being prosecuted and imprisoned by the US government for violations of the code provision you THINK requires citizens to handle the flag as the code says?

The code provision has no enforcement language. There is no penalty in the law for failure to follow the flag code.

I've given you a Supreme Court case (here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8311404#8311520) that should make clear to you that anyone can do whatever they want with the flag, and there is no criminal penalty - unless it is starting a fire without a permit, or some such ancillary crime in play.

You can drag in materials you don't understand, but all you're proving is your lack of knowledge about the law of the nation regarding the flag, and the supremacy of free speech over your belief that the flag is protected from misuse.

[SargeUNN]

35. So far you have failed to communicate

You make insulting remarks without backing up anything. I am radio talk show host and honestly if I did as poor a job on my show making my points as you have here I wouldn't have been on air more than 13 weeks. Sorry but if you are indeed a lawyer show me something.

[TexasObserver]

36. If you choose to remain ignorant that is your choice.

[SargeUNN]

6. actually it isn't

the code is accepted as law so they were violating the law.

[realisticphish]

8. even if it WAS enforceable

there's no penalty for it.

and as others have said, it is not law, but advisory

[SargeUNN]

37. The radio host beats the lawyer

[realisticphish]

40. and paper beats rock. so what?

[TexasObserver]

41. Only in your mind.

It matters whether one is right or not. You're badly misinformed if you think the flag cannot be worn in any way a citizen wants to wear it.

I've given you the US Supreme Court case law. I've explained to you that there's no crime as you imagine there to be. I've asked you to find any federal prosecution of a flag offense in the past 20 years.

Blabbing non stop may work on the radio where you control the calls, but this isn't your radio show. Your saying something is true doesn't make it so.

I challenge you to call the FBI or the US Attorney's office and tell them you want to report people for wearing the flag, and give them the Code section you find so compelling. Maybe they can get it across to you. Be sure to tell them about your radio show and see if you can get them to come on the air to discuss the code section with you. That would be a laugh riot, if anyone is listening.

[TexasObserver]

9. No, it isn't mandatory. It is advisory.

should
should
should
should
should

[4lbs]

12. There's a difference between me buying a T-shirt with the U.S. flag image on it, and buying an

actual U.S. Flag and sewing it to make a scarf or bandana, or shirt.

[TexasObserver]

31. You can do all that and more with a flag.

In our country, a flag is your private property. It is a piece of cloth, or a piece of metal, or a sticker. You can do with it anything you want. Burn it, tear it up, wipe your feet on it, make a shirt out of it. I'm not saying you need to, but that you're free to.

[pinboy3niner]

39. Excellent post!

The Code is not the issue. The act was intended to give offense, to disrespect a culture.

They had a right to do it. But just because they had the right, doesn't mean they were right to do it.

Better to call them aside and discuss the wisdom of what they were doing, and give them an oportunity to reconsider. No guarantee it would work, but that's the only approach that makes sense.

[scrinmaster]

2. There's a difference between wearing a flag, and wearing clothing with a picture of a flag on it. nt

[SargeUNN]

4. Wearing Apparell it states

that is what it says and clothing picture or not is covered.

[piedmont]

16. "The Flag"

§1. Flag; stripes and stars on

The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars , white in a blue field
§2. Same; additional stars

On the admission of a new State into the Union one star shall be added to the union of the flag; and such addition shall take effect on the fourth day of July then next succeeding such admission

They weren't wearing the flag. They were wearing a picture of a flag.

[SargeUNN]

20. that might be a good defense in court because

it certainly opens up a point of question.

[SargeUNN]

14. I didn't write the code so if

you feel it is legal and nobody tries to get you on it, good, if they do and you find out different then at least you know for sure. I am just stated what the U.S.Code says if you don't agree with it that is up to you, but I showed you what it says and it is your call from there.

[TexasObserver]

33. Under the law of the nation, you're free to do either.

There is no difference between wearing an actual flag and wearing a miniture flag. It's your private property, and you're free to do with it what you wish.

You can't grab a flag that belongs to someone else. That's their property, and it would be theft.

[Toucano]

5. Has everyone forgotten the Abbie Hoffman flag case?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-krassner/the-trial-of-abbie-hoffma_b_2334.html

In October 1968, he was arrested in Washington for wearing a shirt that resembled the design of an American flag. Authorities at the maximum security penitentiary did their worst to harass and humiliate him. They gave him a preventive de-lousing. They took a blood sample against his will, without affording him the sterile courtesy of a disposable syringe.

Two months later, Abbie was hospitalized in New York City for serum hepatitis. The recuperative process didn’t prevent him from helping doctors to organize themselves against some of the oppressive tactics of the medical profession.

...

When the judge declared him guilty, Abbie uttered the immortal words, “I only regret that I have but one shirt to give for my country.”

I think that was unjust.

That law is stupid and routinely ignored.

However, it is the law and it is the philosophy of conservatives.

As usual, they now want to talk out of both sides of their mouths.


For the record, I would not have stopped the U.S. flag wearing students from being stupid. We have to tolerate the stupid. But considering what they did to Hoffman, I don't think the conservatives are in a position to bring this up.

[SargeUNN]

10. exactly true

We can fight to change the law, but frankly these boys broke the law and they could have gotten worse for it legally. We can't choose which laws we won't follow and which we will just on our opinions without being willing to pay the price for it.

[fishwax]

17. what worse punishment could they have gotten?

:shrug:

[SargeUNN]

19. the only instance I know if Hoffman

have to check that case to see what happened to him. I don't recall myself what happened on that charge.

[fishwax]

21. that was simply a political prosecution

and the Supreme Court has since ruled that flag desecration is protected by the first amendment. (That's why, periodically, the repubs will start calling for a constitutional amendment "protecting" the flag.)

[SargeUNN]

27. yeah the boys did it in spite

that is obvious and they were just trying to hide it.

[fishwax]

32. I have no doubt it was spiteful, but that doesn't make it criminal

[fishwax]

15. that was before the Johnson and Eichman cases, though,

which held that flag desecration is protected by the first amendment.

Of course that doesn't change the fundamental hypocrisy of the right on the issue.

[TexasObserver]

22. That was over 40 years ago, and hasn't been the law in decades.

It's hard to believe there are so many people who still don't know that the flag can be used in demonstrative speech, and that overrides all the tight assed attempts to criminalize such conduct.
------------------------------------------------------
Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?

By Austin Cline

Does the state have the authority to make it a crime to burn an American flag, even as part of a political protest and as a means for expressing a political opinion? Most states have banned flag burning as part of statutes generally outlawing flag desecration. The Supreme Court had to rule on such the Texas law when a man was convicted for burning an American flag at the Republican National Convention.

During the 1984 Republican convention in Dallas, Texas, Gregory Lee (Joey) Johnson soaked an American flag in kerosene and burned it in front of the convention building while protesting the polices of Ronald Reagan. Other protesters accompanied this by chanting “America; red, white and blue; we spit on you.”

Arrested and convicted under a Texas law against intentionally or knowingly desecrating a state or national flag, Johnson was fined $2000 and sentenced to one year in jail. He appealed to the Supreme Court where Texas argued that it had a right to protect the flag as a symbol of national unity. Johnson argued that his freedom to express himself protected his actions.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for Johnson. They rejected the claim that the ban was necessary to protect breaches of the peace due to the offense that burning a flag would cause.
http://atheism.about.com/od/flagburningcourtcases/a/TexasJohnson.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by - as one witness here did - according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

-- Justice William J. Brennan, from his majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson (1989)


There are earlier cases on the wearing of flags. Bottom line is you can use a flag any way you want to use it to express your political opinion.

[SargeUNN]

26. this is what it says at

United States Code: About
The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States based on what is printed in the Statutes at Large. It is divided by broad subjects into 50 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Since 1926, the United States Code has been published every six years. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.

GPO Access contains the 2006, 2000, and 1994 editions of the U.S. Code, plus annual supplements. Files are available in ASCII Text from the 1994 edition forward and Portable Document Format (PDF) from the 2006 edition forward.

The information contained in the U.S. Code on GPO Access has been provided to GPO by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. While every effort has been made to ensure that the U.S. Code database on GPO Access is accurate, those using it for legal research should verify their results against the printed version of the United States Code available through
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode
the Government Printing Office.

GPO recognizes that other U.S. Code products exist that are not available from the U.S. Government Printing Office. Among these are the U.S.C.A. (U.S. Code Annotated) and the U.S.C.S. (U.S. Code Service). The U.S.C.A. and U.S.C.S. contain everything that is printed in the U.S. Code but also include annotations to case law relevant to the particular statute. While these publications may be more current, they are not the official version of the U.S. Code that is published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.

NOTE: Of the 50 titles, only 23 have been enacted into positive (statutory) law. These titles are 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49. When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern.

The U.S. Code does not include regulations issued by executive branch agencies, decisions of the Federal courts, treaties, or laws enacted by State or local governments. Regulations issued by executive branch agencies are available in the Code of Federal Regulations. Proposed and recently adopted regulations may be found in the Federal Register.
--------------
dated 2009 hardly 40 years ago.

[TexasObserver]

30. The case against Hoffman was over 40 years ago. It's not the law now.

The LAW on this topic is what the Supreme Court says it is, and they have ruled quite clearly - in the case I've cited for you and quoted for you - that misuse of the flag is a free speech right in this country.

You can wear a flag, burn a flag, use it as a door mat, put it on a T shirt, wear it as a jock strap, and it's protected speech in this country.

You're on the Tea Bagger side of this issue.

[Toucano]

34. I should have remembered that.

Still lost in the 60's I guess!

Cheers!

[Chulanowa]

25. Aside from the advisory thing, there's another hitch for you

"flag" clothing is not actually a flag. The code prevents you from using an actual flag to make clothing, it does not prevent you from wearing clothing with flag patterns or designs.

[SargeUNN]

28. now that I would agree could be a defense position that might work

That might get someone off, but it would probably come down to the one who makes the ruling.

[Obamanaut]

43. Because the 'code' is merely a guideline, and is not enforceable,

there would be no 'defense position' and no 'ruling' because there is no violation to an actual law.

[NYC_SKP]

38. Damn.

[pipoman]

42. Now post the penalty for violation of this 'code'.

Every enforceable code must list maximum punishments for violation including classification of what criminal result a conviction bears.



http://www.flagclothes.com/

These guys must be eligible for the death penalty what with their illegal distribution of desecrated flags and all.

A related issue, to the vast, vast majority of Mexican Americans and immigrants, cinco de mayo is a completely meaningless holiday only celebrated by beer companies and Americanized Mexican restaurants.