CNN: Flying Mexican Flag Over US Flag Is OK

NewsBusters.org ^ | Richard Newcomb

[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.

[archy]

If that is the case, then the President should declare it as such, suspending the Constitution and order troops to repel the invasion.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; ... .

[Clemenza]

Posting a quote from some braindead Sandinista from 22 years ago, along with some puto (that's gay for you lingustically challenged) gangbangers won't change the fact that there is a big difference between migration and a military invasion.

If you consider MS-13 to be an army, what would you think of La Cosa Nostra?

[ReignOfError]

So then, are you saying that you are OK with the action of flying a mexican flag over/above an American flag on our soil?

It's not OK. It annoys me. That doesn't make it a federal crime.

[ReignOfError]

That's hyperbole and unrelated to this entire thread. It's over-the-top rhetoric like that that makes me shake my head in dismay. Whoever suggested that? Whoever did that?

Those restrictions are part of the same "flag code" that states that no flag should fy above the US flag. At least as I learned it in scouts -- I've heard that they dropped the rule about leaving the flag flying in the rain, because most modern flags are made of artificial fibers that don't mildew.

[ReignOfError]

Great point. The surrenderists would defend the rights of invaders to bear arms!

In the event of a foreign military invasion of our soil, gun control would be colossally irrelevant. There is no right to keep and bear arms when you're in custody or dead. What, you think the government would take an invading army's guns and then let them all go?

[ReignOfError]

“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:

That makes no mention of “government offices”

The law says "should," not "shall." It's a recommendation made to everyone, but only binding on government offices (assuming the government chooses to make it so).

[ReignOfError]

I thought “jury nullification” was only used by liberals and other ilk who have no respect or understanding for the Constitution.

I don't know where you picked up that notion. People of all ideological stripes give in to the temptation to nullify laws they don't like at the moment.

[ReignOfError]

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.

Then start killing the invaders. If you believe that this is a de facto war, and that said war justifies what would otherwise be unlawful conduct, why take the pusillanimous step of attacking the flag instead of the enemy? "Capture the flag" is a playground game, not a war strategy. Get off the soapbox and pull out the cartridge box.

You'd go away for life, of course, but if you believe that we're at war and that breaking the law is justified to defend the country, why just nip at the edges?

[Steelerfan]

Courts have agreed:

A brief review of the display provisions of the Flag Code indicates that the statute was not intended [**20] to proscribe conduct. The Flag Code codifies various existing rules and customs pertaining to the display of the American flag “for the use of such civilians or civilian groups or organizations as may not be required to conform with regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments of the Government of the United States.” 36 U.S.C. § 173. The operative provisions of the statute consistently use the term “should,” and not “shall,” when describing the proper manner for display of the flag. See 36 U.S.C. §§ 174-76. Moreover, Congress attached no penalty provisions for noncompliance with the display provisions in sections 174-76.

Dimmitt v. Clearwater, 985 F.2d 1565, 1573 (11th Cir. 1993)

Not to justify flying the Mexican (or any other flag) over our flag, or take away from the importance of the illegal immigration issue, but it is not criminal to fly such a flag.

[ReignOfError]

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.

Sheer and utter nonsense. The Constitution has never been suspended in toto, though some provisions have been pushed to the breaking point, in time of war. The 1812 and 1864 elections went ahead on schedule.

The simple answer is that Constitutional rights are irrelevant to soldiers in an invading army. Corpses have no rights, and prisoners few, and the only way an enemy soldier falls under the power of US law is in one of those two states. In the latter case, prisoners of war, the Geneva Convention is binding. Duly-ratified treaties are US law -- that's in the Constitution.

[Lazamataz]

So what do you do when you catch somebody flying the flag after dark without s spotlight, or leaving it flying in a thunderstorm? Burn their house down?

[ReignOfError]

suspending the Constitution

Never. This isn't some two-bit banana republic. The Contitution is flexible enough to bend a good ways before breaking, and if it didn't need to be suspended in 1861-65, you'd have to go a long way to imagine a scenario where that would have to be necessary.

[yorkie]

>>I can’t find any obvious indications that the U.S. still exists. I think everyone has “globalized” themselves.<<

IMHO, I don’t think ‘everyone’ has anything to do with the ‘globalizing’ of our nation. It has been happening increment by increment, for years, by those we elected into office, those we trusted to protect our sovereignty.

[FreedomPoster]

So I take it you think the Boston Tea Party was pusillanimous? After all, those Patriots killed no one, in that event.

I’ll refrain from saying what I really think of your comments.

[archy]

While I agree with the sentiments of this gentleman, it is still LEGAL to fly the Mexican, Confederate, or any other flag you want under the FIRST AMENDMENT! How many times do I need to repeat myself?

Since the courts have held that it is legal as First Amendment protected speech to burn a US Flag to make a point, there's no reason US Citizens can't make the same point by burning flags of foreign nations.

Granted, it's impolite, and so long as others refrain from desecration of the US flag, turn about is fair play. But when they deliberately insult or trivialize the US banner, then it's time for theirs to go up in flames.

As for those who've clothed themselves in such foreign banners, should that come to pass? Ish kabibble!

[Freedom2specul8]

"Most vets will look at it as just part of the oath they took years ago to protect this country. "

Well God bless you and the rest of the vets. I'm just thinking that vets, who already have made sacrifices, (including the ultimate, their lives)... the country/govt/citizens should be protecting your citizen rights as well. It should never be the vets job to continue by themselves. It's not appropriate.....but for some reason, the value of honoring our soldiers isn't on the priority list as it should be. I realize that I've included too many topics that might be considered not-related to the flag issue, but it's just a pet peeve of mine. Most of us could not live through or make it through what vets have....(past bootcamp for example)..the least we can do is... 1. create certain laws that indicate/support/show solidarity. IE:the flag issue or even making english the national language. I hope this makes sense....fighting a headache here. :)

[Freedom2specul8]

The local VFW in KCMO rep told us that as long as the flag can be illumited enough to tell what it is, the light is bright enough. Check this out(not a local link, but still good for a reference).

http://vfw1679.tripod.com/flagrule.htm

1. It is the universal custom to display the flag only from sunrise to sunset on buildings and on stationary flagstaffs in the open. However, when a patriotic effect is desired, the flag may be displayed twenty-four hours a day if properly illuminated during the hours of darkness.

3. The flag should not be displayed on days when the weather is inclement, except when an all weather flag is displayed.

We LOVED our all weather flag. It lasted for years...very very well made and worth the investment.

[archy]

I thought “jury nullification” was only used by liberals and other ilk who have no respect or understanding for the Constitution.

Depends on whether you'd consider American Founding Fathers like John Adams or John Peter Zenger to be *liberals* or not. It's probably more accurate to think of them nowadays as Libertarians.

"It is not only his right, [the juror's] but his duty – to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

--John Adams (Yale Law Journal, 1964:173)

In a case involving the civil forfeiture of private property by the state of Georgia, first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, instructed jurors that the jury has "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4)

The jury's veto power protects minorities from "the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority." "In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law." --James Madison, June 8, 1789

[RightWhale]

USC pertains to FedGov activities. Whatever Congress votes through and gets signed gets paraphrased so nobody can possibly understand it and then is printed in the USC. Could be anything in there and none of it matters unless someone is working for or dealing with FedGov.

[archy]

Most vets will look at it as just part of the oath they took years ago to protect this country.

The oath that I first took in 1966 and have renewed at four and six year periods since, with another renewal coming up in about two months is not to protect my country, nor the flag, nor my fellow citizens or their property. It is to support, defend and bear true faith to the U.S.Constitution.

I, (NAME)(SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Major, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

--DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.