Upside-down U.S. flag spurs complaints

Indy Star ^

[Stew Padasso]

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.

[Lady Eileen]

........funny.

[tomkat]

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 ...

[tomkat]

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

foflmao !

[tomkat]

Congress never declared war on Iraq.

nonsense.

[RightWhale]

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

Apparently, he did.

[Nephi]

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.

[klute]

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

As opposed to your non-specific ignorance?

[Nephi]

Yes.

[Southack]

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.

[Dog Gone]

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.

[Southack]

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

Fitting.

[Dog Gone]

LOL

[DeathfromBelow]

but... it wasn't covered in my constitutional law class....

[Nephi]

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.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

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.

[Nephi]

You are the moron if you think he is a liberal. He's to the right of everyone on this thread...except me.

[Trailerpark Badass]

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.

[toddly]

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.

[Dog Gone]

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

You can read it here.

[Poohbah]

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.