Gallagher Interviews the Vet Who Cut Down the Mexican Flag

Mike Gallagher ^ | October 3, 2007 | TownhallVideos

[Domandred]

It’s part of USCode. So by your logic everything in USCode is only protocol?

[weegee]

[ontap]

Previous to Flag Day, June 14, 1923 there were no federal or state regulations governing display of the United States Flag. It was on this date that the National Flag Code was adopted by the National Flag Conference which was attended by representatives of the Army and Navy which had evolved their own procedures, and some 66 other national groups. This purpose of providing guidance based on the Army and Navy procedures relating to display and associated questions about the U. S. Flag was adopted by all organizations in attendance. A few minor changes were made a year later during the Flag Day 1924 Conference, It was not until June 22, 1942 that Congress passed a joint resolution which was amended on December 22, 1942 to become Public Law 829; Chapter 806, 77th Congress, 2nd session. Exact rules for use and display of the flag (36 U.S.C. 173-178) as well as associated sections (36 U.S.C. 171) Conduct during Playing of the National Anthem, (36 U.S.C. 172) the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Manner of Delivery were included. This code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law. Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States.

The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

[weegee]

Odd that burning a US flag is an act of protected speech and not inciting a riot but burning a cross is another matter.

[ontap]

See post #23. My logic has nothing to do with it!

[ontap]

Don’t ask me to explain this stuff, I’m just an old Social Studies Teacher on the verge of retirement.

[DoughtyOne]

This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

Thank you. From what you posted, it appears you are correct.

It certainly is amazing how fast the SCOTUS can move when it wants to. It didn't take nine months for them to strike down a new flag protection act.

"Now, Roe v Wade, we better mull that over for decades..."

[carton253]

But that statute is not about the proper way to fly it. That is specifically about defacing it - when it is not on a flag pole.

[beelzepug]

Did you bother to read the comments at the end of that article that cited chapter and verse of both federal and Nevada law, or just what the ACLU communists had to say? And if flying a foreign flag above our own is considered free speech then ripping the damned thing down should be, as well.

[steveo]

While I’m with him all the way it is not illegal to do this!

Nor is it illegal having 150+ Viet vet bikers show up at his bar...

[weegee]

Ripping someone else’s flag down is not. Although I don’t recall any “extra” charges when an anti”war” youth ripped down a veteran’s own flag and burned it.

[Gondring]

Did you read what you posted?

This code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia.

See Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 7 of the US Code (4USC7) and the Congressional Research Service's reports, "The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions" and "Flag Desecration and Flag Misuse Laws in the United States."

So it's against federal law, even though the US Code does not provide for penalties or enforcement, and is merely declaratory and advisory.

Now, what does Nevada say about Desecration of Flags?

DESECRATION OF FLAGS

NRS 201.290 Penalty; exception.

1. Any person who, in any manner, for exhibition or display, puts or causes to be placed any inscription, design, device, symbol, portrait, name, advertisement, words, character, marks or notice, or sets or places any goods, wares and merchandise whatever upon any flag or ensign of the United States, or state flag of this State, or ensign, evidently purporting to be either of the flags or ensign, or who in any manner appends, annexes, or affixes to any such flag or ensign any inscription, design, device, symbol, portrait, name, advertisement, words, marks, notice or token whatever, or who displays or exhibits or causes to be displayed or exhibited any flag or ensign, evidently purporting to be either of the flags, upon which shall in any manner be put, attached, annexed or affixed any inscription, design, device, symbol, portrait, name, advertisement, words, marks, notice or token whatever, or who publicly or willfully mutilates, tramples upon, or who tears down or willfully and maliciously removes while owned by others, or defames, slanders, or speaks evilly or in a contemptuous manner of or otherwise defaces or defiles any of the flags, or ensign, which are public or private property, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

2. This section shall not apply to flags or ensigns the property of or used in the service of the United States or of this State, upon which inscriptions, names of actions, words, marks or symbols are placed pursuant to law or authorized regulations.

[1911 C&P § 338; A 1919, 438; 1919 RL § 6603; NCL § 10286]

Heck, it's against the law to speak contemptuously about the flag! Displaying the Mexican flag above the US Flag is therefore a state misdemeanor, IMHO, although IANAL.

[Married with Children]

Gallagher the comedian is about as AMERICAN as they come...he is awesome!!!

[DoughtyOne]

I believe Use & Display are addressed.

Check out the language again and see if you agree.

[ontap]

The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

[DoughtyOne]

Sounds as if the info you posted is still active as of 2005. If so, then that makes it pretty clear this guy screwed up.

Thanks for the post.

[Gondring]

That was the Flag Protection Act of 19890, not the Nevada law.

[ontap]

Federal law trumps state law. When the Supreme Court rules something is unconstitutional thats it until it rules differently or a later court riles differently.

[Gondring]

Federal law trumps state law. When the Supreme Court rules something is unconstitutional thats it until it rules differently or a later court riles differently.

In the revisionist world, yes, but not in the true Constitutional world.

There are powers reserved to the states, and those that are federal. Something can be un-Constitutional because the Feds try to do something that is not in their domain, while it remains fine for the states. Also, the decision was based on that legislation, not sweeping beyond it. While the SCOTUS decision upheld Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), which was about desecration of the flag, the SCOTUS opinion on the Flag Protection Act of 1989 specifically notes that it doesn't address the issue of the flag as a symbol of national sovereignty. Similarly, it doesn't get into the details of that symbolism. The public flying of a Mexican flag over a US flag is taken as an international symbol of conquest or submission. That is separate from the simple desecration of the flag.

So, there are complex issues that aren't resolved as simply as saying " the Government's desire to preserve the flag as a symbol for certain national ideals is implicated "the SCOTUS ruled laws against flag display are unconstitutional"...

But again, IANAL; I'm "just" a citizen. :-)

[ontap]

We live in the world of reality. While I whole heartedly agree with you It matters not. This is why we have to elect people who will nominate people to the court that will rule on the law and not make law. Until we can do that this is the law. This is why I get frustrated with people who say they will sit out an election before they will vote for some one who does not mirror their beliefs. I hope reason will prevail.