Bush Frees Up Flag Displays

AP ^ | 7/24/6

[Cobra64]

Not sure why the lecture. an association is something one joins. Just like a club, the boy scouts, or the YMCA. If you don't like what the association stands for, don't join. If you don't like working for the XYZ company, then leave. It's called choice.

[hadit2here]

For many, many years the courts have refused to enforce provisions of private contracts that are "contrary to public policy."

And for many years, courts have refused to uphold the 2nd amendment, which is quite crystal clear in its wording and scope. Need I point out the Forth and Fifth, or maybe the Tenth? Not to mention most all of Article VI, or III.

And in Kelo, "the courts" have refused to uphold the US Constitutional provision against government takings and the rights of property owners.

You make my point perfectly... I just stated that Congress and the President don't have the power to do what they did, and the Judicial branch doesn't actually have the Constitutional power to do what you stated."

U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section 10.: No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Isn't it amazing how socialist, big governmenters can get all the penumbras and emanations and "interpretations" from a very precisely worded, completely comprehensible-by-the-layman, plain English document?

"The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 47

Describes exactly what we have today- big government with all the power in the same hands- just different titles.

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
-- Justice Louis Brandeis (1928)

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
--James Madison

"To embarass justice by a multiplicity of laws, or to hazard it by confidence in judges, are the oposite rocks on which all civil institutions have been wrecked."
--engraved in the Minnesota State Capitol Outside the supreme Court Chambers

Just because the Congress, the President or the Courts have decreed something, doesn't make it constitutional.

Like the saying goes, why not give the Iraqi's our Constitution. We aren't using it any more.

[quantim]

I'd bet the eminent domain Supreme Court will strike this down.

Hear your sentiment loud and clear and initially thought the same thing.

However:

It was passed unanimously by both the House and the Senate.

SCOTUS has no say.

[quantim]

If the courts stay out of politics maybe politicians won't have to overrule the awful courts.

Most ironic excellent tagline!  BTW, it fits.

[Soul Seeker]

Actually, there is a time for critisism.

This isn't it.

Congress is going to pass laws.

The President generally is going to sign them.

This is a good law in my view. Therefore, rather then spending time passing not so good or destructive laws...they budgeted their time to do some good. Even though it's of a more minimal scale then larger legislation I'd like passed, I'm not going to disrespect the small victories.

Also, a widely known secret is just about everything done in D.C. is political. Politicians singing God Bless America on the capitol steps after 9-11 was political. Oh, some may have been sincere but the majority of them? I didn't buy it then, I don't buy it now.

So what if this is political. It addresses an actually need and, again, imo done the correct way. The only time I get upset with "pandering", is when it's obvious it's going nowhere...and possibly being used as a distraction. As with the gay marriage ban. I support the amendment, but knew it didn't have the votes among RINO's let alone Democrats for 2/3rd's. They were simply trying to buy upset constituents off by voting on something that would not pass in an elective year on an issue they hadn't paid any attention to for two years. Now THAT is worth complaining about, which I did. Greatly.

This? The law passed and was signed. With little fanfare, it's certainly not in the top 10 on the evening broadcast is it? No complaints or snark from this corner for a good law passing. Election year or not.

[Arkinsaw]

Not sure why the lecture. an association is something one joins. Just like a club, the boy scouts, or the YMCA. If you don't like what the association stands for, don't join. If you don't like working for the XYZ company, then leave. It's called choice.

Are you not reading the thread? There are places that are moving to require Homeowner Assocatiation membership for new subdivisions. Primarily because these governments can require a private pseudo-government in the knowledge that these "associations" can put in place requirements that they, as governments, cannot. I am not sure how you cannot see the danger to private property rights and individual liberty in that.

There are many conservatives who choose to blind themselves to that because they like order, and individual liberty can be messy. Its only when the Homeowner's Association makes them take down their flag or somesuch before it strikes the conservative nerve.

Right now, if you don't like the Homeowner's Association, you can move somewhere else, hopefully these things don't spread to the point where there are cities that you just can't move to without signing away certain property and freedom of expression rights.

They are a danger, and I'll speak about them. Sorry.

[Arkinsaw]

Not sure why the lecture. an association is something one joins. Just like a club, the boy scouts, or the YMCA. If you don't like what the association stands for, don't join. If you don't like working for the XYZ company, then leave. It's called choice.

When I join the Boy Scouts, or a club, or the YMCA...they do not have the authority to pass regulations over my private property like a legislature, or pass judgment on what I do with my private property, or enact financial penalties against me.

Joining a club is very different from owning land. Land is very important. The right to own land anywhere in the United States is very important. No inch of dirt in the United States should fall under the jurisdiction of some pseudo-government that is not bound by the restrictions on government placed in our Constitution. They are there for good reason.

I have no problem being restricted on my own land by a legitimate representative government bound by the Constitution. I do have a problem being prevented from buying land anywhere in the United States if I have a willing seller, just because I won't sign some of my rights away. There should never be a land sale prevented just because a citizen won't sign his rights away to get the land. That should be a no-no. Thats what the deal is with these things.

[Cobra64]

Well, I've owned real estate in Colorado, New York, New Jersy, Connecticut and Vermont, and now in North Carolina on Lake James.

I make my own choices and decisions where I live, and what properties I buy.

I chose to live here and I generally like the "rules of engagement." I do not have to live here. No one is making me.

[Cobra64]

There are places that are moving to require Homeowner Assocatiation membership for new subdivisions.

So, don't live there. It's your choice.

I chose to live in a subdivision that has stringent requirements as put together by the HOMEOWNERS.

[Cobra64]

BTW, do you live in a city?

[Cobra64]

There should never be a land sale prevented just because a citizen won't sign his rights away to get the land. That should be a no-no.

I chose not to buy a Corvette from a dealer because because it was a convertible. So I went to another dealer and bought what I wanted. Sounds pretty basic to me (if you can understand the analogy).

[Arkinsaw]

I chose not to buy a Corvette from a dealer because because it was a convertible. So I went to another dealer and bought what I wanted. Sounds pretty basic to me (if you can understand the analogy).

Provided that you have another dealer available with other choices.

I hope you understand that land ownership is a far more important thing to liberty than is the choice between a convertible, or a hardtop.

If all the dealers in your area choose not supply convertibles for "safety and lawsuit reasons", you can go elsewhere, get your convertible, and drive it back to the place you live and work.

If the land for 20 miles around the city you work in is all restricted by Homeowner's Associations so that you cannot keep weapons, cannot fly flags, and cannot peacably assemble....then you cannot go elsewhere, buy land, and bring it back to the place where you live and work. You are effectively prohibited from living and working in an area of the United States because you refuse to sign away some of your God-given rights.

Land ownership, and the ability to be the master of your land, is one of the key elements of an American Free Republic. You dismiss issues offhand that go much deeper than you seem to want to concede.

This is a danger if allowed to spread to the point where choices are limited or where government can require that new development be under the jurisdiction of these pseudo-governments.

[Arkinsaw]

So, don't live there. It's your choice. I chose to live in a subdivision that has stringent requirements as put together by the HOMEOWNERS.

So its ok for government's to REQUIRE new development to come under an entity not bound by the same Constitutional chains that it is. An entity that can legislate, adjudicate, and levy penalties against the land-owner? If allowed to proceded, whole towns could end up with no place to buy property if you do not sign away certain rights.

The American government is also run by HOMEOWNERS, and CITIZENS, and NEIGHBORS. But we still restrict what they are allowed to do. We do not allow the majority of our neighbors to take away God-given rights. We wrote a Constitution to prevent our neighbors from doing this to us.

These are pseudo-governments. Our God-given rights should be protected from them, just as we protect them from other legislative, adjudicative, and penalty laying bodies established by a majority of our neighbors.

He who would trade essential liberties for well-cut lawns deserves neither. Our ancestors advised us to be JEALOUS of our liberties, and those of our neighbors. Not sign them away or set up non-governments in order to get around Constitutional restrictions.

[Cobra64]

So its ok for government's to REQUIRE new development...

I don't know what planet you are living on. No government has anything to do with where I live or how I live on my own property. A homeowners association has nothing to do with the government. The developers have nothing to do with the government other than town and county zoning laws.

The concept is the same as joining a country club. There are rules, conditions and fees. If you don't loke it, stay home in your apartment and wath soap operas.

[Arkinsaw]

See my other replies in the thread. Just because you have chosen to waive some rights and enjoy the results, is not an argument that the spread of these things across the nation is not a danger to the general liberty. Fine, you enjoy it and have no problem with it.

But imagine if a good conservative gets a fine job in Berkeley and tries to buy some land, and all the housing within 40 miles is covered by Homeowner's Associations. The vast majority there are liberal and the rules are....no flying US or military flags....no bumper stickers "advocating war" on the street....no handguns in the neighborhood....etc., etc.

Sorry, you are effectively prohibited from taking that job in Berkeley unless you conform. Yes, you will have a choice...conform.....drive 50 miles......live out in the woods and get a job baling hay.

That, is an unconstitutional government. Essentially preventing an American citizen from the full benefit of that citizenship in that area country because he will not sign away God-given rights.

This is an instance where it works fine for you at this moment....but if Hillary and 5,000 liberals moved in to the neighborhood would you want THAT majority telling you what to do without the Constitutional restrictions? I doubt it.

[Cobra64]

He who would trade essential liberties for well-cut lawns deserves neither.

I don't have a lawn. We chose English gardens. But niether do we shit in the streets.

[GSWarrior]

When will President Bush issue his statement on loud music after 10pm?

[Professional Engineer]

Good morning ladies and gents. Flag-o-Ping

[Arkinsaw]

I don't know what planet you are living on. No government has anything to do with where I live or how I live on my own property. A homeowners association has nothing to do with the government. The developers have nothing to do with the government other than town and county zoning laws.

Are you not reading the thread?

In fact the situation is already worse than you may suspect, because some municipalities are now REQUIRING that all new subdivision developments must be governed by homeowners' associations.

REQUIRING. These things are spreading. Cities like them because they can put requirements on homeowners that government is not allowed to.

I really don't care if you want to sign away your fundamental liberties in exchange for nicely mowed lawns. Thats fine. What is a danger to ME is how these are spreading and restricting the choices that people, other than you, have.

[Cobra64]

Well the folks in Beverly Hills and Malibu decided to live there and apparently can afford to live there. Personally I wouldn't live in Berkley because I can't afford it, and don't like CA to begin with. Boxer and Feinstein are enough to keep anyone of that state. These are reasons why I CHOOSE not to live there.

BTW, I do own a cabin in the Rocky Mountains near Breckenridge. And there are ZERO restrictions there other than starting forest fires.

Suppose you move in next to me here on Lake James, and build a shack, paint itpurple and drain oil in the street, leave gutted deer hanging from the front porch for the turkey vultures to dine on. I'd have a problem. But you are in your Constitutional rights. That's true. But by the same token you agreed not to do these things in accepting the rules and conditions living in theis subdivision. If you don't like the criteria, then you have the choice of declining.

Ever sign a contract?

Ever sign a lease, or a purchase to buy agreement? There are conditions.

My children are not allowed to cuss in front of their mother. If they do, I smack 'em. Thiose are the condidiotns. If they don't like it they can leave.

If you need further examples and analogies, you need help in logic.