Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Upside-down U.S. flag spurs complaints
Indy Star ^

Posted on 04/11/2003 7:57:16 AM PDT by Stew Padasso

Edited on 05/07/2004 6:26:45 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

CRAWFORDSVILLE, Ind. -- Neighbors are asking a central Indiana man to remove an upside-down American flag from his yard because they consider it an insult to veterans.

An inverted American flag can be a sign for distress, but 10 residents have signed a letter asking Orvel Kreb to fly the flag properly or take it down.


(Excerpt) Read more at indystar.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: oldglory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: MalcolmS
........funny.
21 posted on 04/11/2003 9:27:53 AM PDT by Lady Eileen (The rights of the people come from God. The powers of government come from the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot
I felt like flying mine upside down during the entire clinton era

we did for awhile, and nonstop during the 'recount' clusterf*ck.

i took it to the USSC that way, too ...


22 posted on 04/11/2003 9:32:40 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MalcolmS
"Ahhh," he opined, "Now you are being boarded by pirates."

foflmao !

23 posted on 04/11/2003 9:34:45 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Congress never declared war on Iraq.

nonsense.

24 posted on 04/11/2003 9:42:01 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Bush didn't have the authority to wage war on Iraq.

Apparently, he did.

25 posted on 04/11/2003 9:44:50 AM PDT by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
That's funny. My highest grade in law school was in Constitutional Law.

I'm glad you see the humor/irony in that, too.

You have your interpretation. Of course, the courts have specifically rejected it.

Of course, the courts are never wrong and without agenda.

You're flat out wrong.

I know you don't mean to say that when congress "shall have the power to lay and collect taxes," etc and "declare war" that because congress has levied taxes in the past, President Bush can levy taxes as suits him, but that is what you and the courts are saying.

But, the courts are never wrong.

Also, it is disingenuous to suggest that the "war on terrorism resolution" covers the war on Iraq. You, Mr. Kreb and I know that that resolution was argued for because terrorists have no national identity. Saddam does. Did.

Interestingly, the terrorist resolution serves two opposing purposes: It met the minimal requirement for the declaration of war (throwing your and the courts assertion into doubt) and allows the troops to mobilize, but it also obscures the authority for which the original action came from - congress. Which according to you and the courts was never needed in the first place.

Lastly, because I know we'll never agree, I will concede that public sentiment makes all of this discussion irrelevent in a practical sense. Still, it is worthwhile to mention the constitution now and then.

26 posted on 04/11/2003 9:54:42 AM PDT by Nephi (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
You have demonstated complete ignorance of the constitution; specifically, Section 8.

As opposed to your non-specific ignorance?
27 posted on 04/11/2003 9:57:15 AM PDT by klute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: klute
Yes.
28 posted on 04/11/2003 10:02:12 AM PDT by Nephi (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Nephi

Perhaps you missed Congress passing $80 Billion for the War on Iraq, or maybe you just don't understand that paying for a war qualifies as legal authorization.

Further, perhaps you don't realize that the President has full authority to defend the U.S. and respond to hostile acts against us, e.g. Hussein firing on U.S. aircraft flying over the Northern and Southern Iraq "no fly zones" set up in Iraq's 1991 surrender treaty, among a host of numerous other legal justifications for war.

29 posted on 04/11/2003 10:05:42 AM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Also, it is disingenuous to suggest that the "war on terrorism resolution" covers the war on Iraq.

Who suggested it? Certainly not me.

Military action now underway against Iraq is lawful and fully authorized by the Congress in section 3(a) of Public Law 107-243, (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002) which passed the Senate on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23, and which passed the House of Representatives on that same date by a vote of 296-133.

Perhaps you ought to read it.

30 posted on 04/11/2003 10:07:31 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

The Senate vote for the War on Iraq authorization was held on the Clinton's wedding anniversary.

Fitting.

31 posted on 04/11/2003 10:17:15 AM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Southack
LOL
32 posted on 04/11/2003 10:18:28 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
but... it wasn't covered in my constitutional law class....
33 posted on 04/11/2003 10:25:09 AM PDT by DeathfromBelow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Military action now underway against Iraq is lawful and fully authorized by the Congress in section 3(a) of Public Law 107-243, (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002) which passed the Senate on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23, and which passed the House of Representatives on that same date by a vote of 296-133.

Perhaps you ought to read it.

Yes, I should. If it I can find it.

It is also curious that William F. Jasper of March 24, 2003 issue of The New American apparently doesn't acknowledge the resolution you cite. I wonder why.

34 posted on 04/11/2003 10:31:17 AM PDT by Nephi (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
I wonder if he realizes that displaying the flag that way sends out the message to criminals that a moronic liberal lives there and is most likely unarmed.
35 posted on 04/11/2003 10:36:51 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult ("Read Hillary's hips. I never had sex with that woman.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
You are the moron if you think he is a liberal. He's to the right of everyone on this thread...except me.
36 posted on 04/11/2003 10:38:31 AM PDT by Nephi (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
It is also curious that William F. Jasper of March 24, 2003 issue of The New American apparently doesn't acknowledge the resolution you cite. I wonder why.

It's not a resolution, it's public law, signed by the President on Oct. 16, 2002.

37 posted on 04/11/2003 10:41:28 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: All
If this guy is signaling that he's in distress then get some people together to go to his house every 15 minutes to pound on his door and ask if he's alright. To include all hours of the night.
38 posted on 04/11/2003 10:44:03 AM PDT by toddly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
I don't know why he wouldn't acknowledge it. News of its passage made all the newspapers.

You can read it here.

39 posted on 04/11/2003 10:44:47 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
It is also curious that William F. Jasper of March 24, 2003 issue of The New American apparently doesn't acknowledge the resolution you cite. I wonder why.

Because it undercuts his argument.

40 posted on 04/11/2003 10:45:37 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson