Posted on 10/03/2007 5:33:07 PM PDT by SandRat
A Mexican bar owner in Reno Nevada flew the Mexican flag above that of the United States. Only problem is that this is specifically illegal under United States Code Section 7, Title Four, which states,
(c) 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: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.
The brazen effrontery of the bar prompted an American veteran to cut down both flags. But when CNN reported on the event, they managed to significantly skew the perception. The CNN report simply states that the veteran was angry that the Mexican flag was placed above that of the US- no mention was made that it was in fact illegal under US law. CNN compounded their offense by showing in their video clip, not the actual words of the relevant US code that outlaws this action, but instead 'flag rules' taken from USHistory.org, thus downplaying the actual offense, by suggesting that athe law is in fact merely recommended behavior. As in so much relating to the illegal alien lobby, apprently it is OK with CNN for immigrants to disrespect and/or disobey the laws of our country, but let one American try to react, and they scream bloody murder. Balance? What balance? Cross-posted on StoneHeads.
I believe that’s essentially what I said.
“It’s too bad they have to be the ones to do it. The country they protected should be doing it for them.”
Most vets will look at it as just part of the oath they took years ago to protect this country.
The liberal whiney pseudo vets will have something else to cry and whine about. Ones like Kerry, Murtha, Harkin, McDermott and other whiney liberal vets.
Military persons are taught that they are not required to obey an unlawful order. Should civilians be allowed less?
Apples and oranges. A "bad law" that has been established through the constitutionally-defined process should be obeyed. If you don't like it, feel free to work through appropriate channels to change it.
Military persons are taught not to obey unlawful orders - NOT to disobey lawful orders they don't feel are appropriate.
Post #10 .... goes for me too ....
This was intentional desecration.
Whether the action is specifically mentioned or not, the penalty applies.
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18
Part I. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 33 - EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES
THIS TITLE WAS ENACTED BY ACT JUNE 25, 1948, CH. 645, SEC. 1, 62 STAT. 683
§ 700. Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties
(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term ‘flag of the United States’ means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.
That ... my friend ... is exactly right ... though there may be no LEGAL penalty ... there is and will be a price to pay ...
Now that just totally confused me...would you mind looking at my previous links, especially from the VFW website?
Flying any flag above the U.S. flag ON OUR SOIL is an act of war.
My 4th great grandfather was the acting Sgt. Major at the Alamo and died killing as many Mexicans as he could so Texas could be a free republic. Texas later decided to join the United States - the U.S. DID NOT take Texas from Mexico as a lot of foolish Mexicans believe. Texas and the rest of the southwest are now part of the U.S. and any attempts by illegals and traitors to revert this land to filthy, corrupt Mexico will bring about their complete destruction.
It may be the U.S. will need to have another war with Mexico someday to correct the faulty mindset of many Mexicans.
May God bless that Army vet who cut down the crappy mexican flag - I’ll do the same thing if I see that in my community. That Reno, NV bar owner needs to know on no uncertain terms that he can do that in Mexico - but not here in America!
However, there is a penalty for theft and that includes stealing a flag.”
Hey Truman, please make sure that I’m on OldSmaj’s jury after he’s charged, arrested and tried for this “crime”...you and a bunch of other folks will learn all about the concept of “jury nullification”
I thought “jury nullification” was only used by liberals and other ilk who have no respect or understanding for the Constitution.
Laws against vandalism are not unlawful orders.
Roger that!
Presumably, if the U.S. were invaded by Mexico, Canada or some other country, the Constitution would be suspended thus denying the foreign invaders of Constitutional protections.
Very true! But there is also no penalty for 20 million invaders crosiing our borders illegally and planting their symbol of sovereignty on American soil. There is, however, an oath taken by naturalized citizens to thier adopted country, America.
So the guy who cut down the flag is in technical violation of the law while the clowns flying the Mexican flag atop the flag pole have somehow forgotten which country they live in.
America, meet Balkanization. Coming to a town near you!
The man who had the Mexican Flag flying over his business is an American Citizen.
And while I am not sure if he is a naturalized citizen or not, I am sure that he does understand the First Amendment.
Since when is theft a ‘technical violation of the law”?
In this case, since 20 million Mexicans invaded this country illegally and began putting their symbol of Mexican sovereignty on American soil.
And I really don't care whether you like that explanation or not.
If in fact we are being invaded by Mexico, every man who has been Commander in Chief for the last 30 years should be charged with treason for not taking measures to repel the invasion.
Don’t miss the pictures in #112 and #113, the latter in particular. Do you think those were taken in Mexico?
We *are* being invaded, whether you wish to recognize the fact, or not.
Some aren’t going to take it lying down. Like the guy who’s the subject of this story. Like OldSmaj.
Right. Got it. That’s an argument only an ACLU lawyer could love. And see my previous post, just above.
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.
