Posted on 01/14/2025 1:15:56 AM PST by fluorescence
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — U.S. flags at President-elect Donald Trump ‘s private Mar-a-Lago club are back to flying at full height.
Flags are supposed to fly at half-staff through the end of January out of respect for former President Jimmy Carter, who died on Dec. 29. A large flag on Trump’s property in Palm Beach was initially lowered to half-staff according to protocol but has since been raised in the days after Carter was buried Thursday in his hometown of Plains, Georgia.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
“But that is disrespectful.“
Respect is paid willingly - not by government order.
Let the Democrats fly their flags half mast if they even have flags.
My flag isn’t stopping halfway for a politician I didn’t even admire.
I was stationed at a Navy Recruiting District Headquarters. A nearby business had their flag at half staff. Our CO called them and asked them why. They said their company president died. The CO said that’s not the way it works. The person at the company told the CO it was their flag and they would fly it however they wanted to. Pretty much ended the conversation.
I am sure the patriots at AP are flying their flags at half mast..
i guess somebody cares about this, but nobody i know
The flying of flags at half mast has become so common that the honor has lost all meaning. I see flags at half mast and have no idea who is being “honored”. The honor should be limited for the death of Presidents, to honor military veterans and first responders killed in action. Limit this honor to no more than 7 days.
GREAT.
CARTER HAS GONE (RIP)
President TRUMP IS OUR FUTURE !!!
AP, ALL PROPAGANDA
I don’t expect Ole Glory to fly at half staff when Beijing Biden finally departs and says hello to Satan.
oh stop the B.S
30 days for a SITTING pres
not a past one
the past presidents get 1 day
as usual left deception
SPIT
.
Thank you.
US Flag Code is not law. It is a code of etiquette and customs designed to maintain the dignity of the flag. It can be changed at any time by proclamation of the commander in chief
President Eisenhower started the custom of extended half staff display for government officials in 1954 and it was extended to cover more positions in 1969.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title4/chapter1&edition=prelim
Executive Documents
Proc. No. 3044. Display of Flag at Half-Staff Upon Death of Certain Officials and Former Officials
Proc. No. 3044, Mar. 1, 1954, 19 F.R. 1235, as amended by Proc. No. 3948, Dec. 12, 1969, 34 F.R. 19699
I agree with others here that this proclamation is antithetical to what the flag actually stands for. We are not a nation with kings and overlords. Brief periods of respect would be appropriate after the death of a President or another person or group who held a position of respect or otherwise served our country honorably or for a particular event that caused harm to our country. But month-long “national morning” for a president or any other public servant is excessive. The code is supposed to honor the dignity of the flag, not lionize individual people.
I know it’s not high priority, but I do believe that President Trump should issue a proclamation eliminating these excessively long tributes and codifying exceptions for celebratory events that happen during a designated “mourning” time.
What vindictive little me would really like to see would be for President Trump to issue a proclamation from the podium, right after he takes the oath of office, to have all of those flags raised to full height immediately.
Just my 2 cents
Love,
O2
Latest update I could find.
Looks like it’s up to the discretion of the sitting president.
“...By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law...”
Restoration of our republic should take precedence over Carter on Inauguration Day.
The only flag etiquette I care about applies 24/7, every day of the year.
A U.S. flag should be treated with respect at all times.
I don’t give a crap about orders telling me when I can fly it or how high.
NO—IT DOES NOT
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30243.pdf
A U.S. Congressional Research report found:
On the national level the Federal Flag Code provides uniform guidelines for the display of and respect shown to the flag. In addition to the Code, Congress has by statute designated the national anthem and set out the proper conduct during its presentation. The Code is designed "for the use of such civilian groups or organizations as may not be required to conform with regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments" of the federal government. Thus, the Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include enforcement provisions; rather the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups.The Federal Flag Code does not purport to cover all possible situations. Although the Code empowers the President of the United States to alter, modify, repeal, or prescribe additional rules regarding the flag, no federal agency has the authority to issue "official" rulings legally binding on civilians or civilian groups. Consequently, different interpretations of various provisions of the Code may continue to be made. The Flag Code itself, however, suggests a general rule by which practices involving the flag may be fairly tested: "No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America." Therefore, actions not specifically included in the Code may be deemed acceptable as long as proper respect is shown.
In addition to the Flag Code, a separate provision contained in the Federal Criminal Code established criminal penalties for certain treatment of the flag. Prior to 1989, this provision provided criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag. In response to the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson (which held that anti-desecration statutes are unconstitutional if aimed at suppressing one type of expression), Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag. This law imposed a fine and/or up to 1 year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional as applied to a burning of the flag in a public protest.
All the states, at one time or another, have enacted laws relating to the United States flag. Even though the Federal Flag Code does not provide penalties for certain conduct or may not govern certain practices, state law may do so. Therefore, it is advisable to consider applicable provisions of state law, as well as federal law, on questions of proper use of the flag.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep496310/
UNITED STATES v. EICHMAN ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 89-1433. Argued May 14, 1990-Decided June 11, 1990*
After this Court held, in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, that a Texas statute criminalizing desecration of the United States flag in a way that the actor knew would seriously offend onlookers was unconstitutional as applied to an individual who had burned a flag during a political protest, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Act criminalizes the conduct of anyone who "knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon" a United States flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a "worn or soiled" flag. Subsequently, appellees were prosecuted in the District Courts for violating the Act: some for knowingly burning several flags while protesting various aspects of the Government's policies, and others, in a separate incident, for knowingly burning a flag while protesting the Act's passage. In each case, appellees moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the Act violates the First Amendment. Both District Courts, following Johnson, supra, held the Act unconstitutional as applied and dismissed the charges.
Held: Appellees' prosecution for burning a flag in violation of the Act is inconsistent with the First Amendment. The Government concedes, as it must, that appellees' flag burning constituted expressive conduct, and this Court declines to reconsider its rejection in Johnson of the claim that flag burning as a mode of expression does not enjoy the First Amendment's full protection. It is true that this Act, unlike the Texas law, contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Government's asserted interest in protecting the "physical integrity" of a privately owned flag in order to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of the Nation and certain national ideals is related to the suppression, and concerned with the content, of free expression. The mere destruction or disfigurement of a symbol's physical manifestation does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself. The Government's interest is implicated only when a person's treatment of the flag communicates a message to others that is inconsistent with the identified ideals. The precise language of the Act's prohibitions confirms Congress' interest in the communicative impact of flag destruction, since each of the specified terms — with the possible exception of "burns" —unmistakably connotes disrespectful treatment of the flag and suggests a focus on those acts likely to damage the flag's symbolic value, and since the explicit exemption for disposal of "worn or soiled" flags protects certain acts traditionally associated with patriotic respect for the flag. Thus, the Act suffers from the same fundamental flaw as the Texas law, and its restriction on expression cannot "'be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech,'" Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 320. It must therefore be subjected to "the most exacting scrutiny," id., at 321, and, for the reasons stated in Johnson, supra, at 413-415, the Government's interest cannot justify its infringement on First Amendment rights. This conclusion will not be reassessed in light of Congress' recent recognition of a purported "national consensus" favoring a prohibition on flag burning, since any suggestion that the Government's interest in suppressing speech becomes more weighty as popular opposition to that speech grows is foreign to the First Amendment. While flag desecration-like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures -is deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Pp. 313-319.
No. 89-1433, 731 F. Supp. 1123; No. 89-1434, 731 F. Supp. 415, affirmed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 319.
*Together with No. 89-1434, United States v. Haggerty et al., on appeal from the District Court for the Western District of Washington.
We haven’t flown the flag in four years.
We will on Inauguration Day.
For our republic.
Ooooh, AP tattled!
Well, good for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.