What I'm trying to find in my copy of the Constitution is where exactly does either the Congress or the President have the legal right or power to enact such legislation.
Don't get me wrong... I proudly have a US Flag flying on my front porch, right next to the sign with the revolver that says "We don't call 911". And any a$$ho!e who tried to burn or desecrate a flag in my presence would either end up in the hospital or I'd end up in jail.
But still, there is a very important principle here- the Congress and the President have only the power that they are allowed by the US Constitution- no more. This is 1.) a state's rights situation and 2.) an abridgement of legal contractual rights.
As to #1, the Fed Gov doesn't have the power to regulate behavior or most anything else within the boundaries of the sovereign states. That is the province of the state itself. The FedGov is usurping state's power by attempting to regulate this type of thing, and it should be struck down by the USSC as being beyond the power of the FedGov.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
--James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45
As to #2, legal contracts are pretty much sacred under the Constitution. The FedGov doesn't have the power or authority to control or regulate consensual parties to a legal contract. A homeowner's association- which is what this is aimed at- has entered into a contract with the homeowners upon purchase of their property, usually by contractual agreement with the bylaws, etc. of the association. If someone doesn't like the bylaws, they either work to change them, or don't buy the property covered under such a contract.
So under both of these precepts, the FedGov doesn't have any right to try to regulate any of this. This is election year grandstanding, just like the flag burning laws, and most other krap™, attempting to sway sub-moron IQ voters during election years.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
--Thomas Jefferson
"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."
--Edmund A. Opitz
"There is no distinctly native American criminal class... save Congress."
--Mark Twain
>> legal contracts are pretty much sacred under the Constitution. The FedGov doesn't have the power or authority to control or regulate consensual parties to a legal contract. A homeowner's association- which is what this is aimed at- has entered into a contract with the homeowners upon purchase of their property, usually by contractual agreement with the bylaws, etc. of the association. If someone doesn't like the bylaws, they either work to change them, or don't buy the property covered under such a contract.
>> So under both of these precepts, the FedGov doesn't have any right to try to regulate any of this. <<
Not exactly correct:
For many, many years the courts have refused to enforce provisions of private contracts that are "contrary to public policy."
So it's well-established law that if, for example, a homeowners' association bars blacks, Chinese, Jews or any other ethnic or religious group, then the courts will find these contractual provisions null and void.
In a similar vein, about ten years ago the Congress made it illegal for homeowners' associations and landlords to prohibit external TV antennas, whether for satellite or terrestrial reception.
[This doesn't mean your house or apartment can have ANY type of "monster" antenna. But a condo association or landlord is required to make reasonable accomodations for antennas below a certain size.]
So whether one likes the state of the law or not, I'd say the precedents are crystal clear.