United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Homeowner’s Fight Involves Gadsden Flag Tied to Tea Party
Source:
NYTIMES
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us/politics/31flag.html?_r=1&hp
Published: Aug 31, 2010
Author: MARC LACEY
Post Date: 2010-08-31 12:40:27 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 160787
Comments: 228
LAVEEN, Ariz. — Don’t tread on Andy C. McDonel. This year, Mr. McDonel began flying a yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on his roof in this unincorporated area just outside Phoenix. The historic banner — which dates to 1775, when it was hoisted aboard ships during the initial days of the Revolutionary War — has been adopted by the Tea Party movement. But Mr. McDonel said that he had unfurled the flag for its historical significance and nothing else. He notes that the banner, the Gadsden flag, has been widely used over the years and was even featured on the cover of a rock album. “Am I a Metallica fan because I’m using the flag?” he asked. This month, he received a letter from the homeowners’ association ordering him to remove “the debris” from his roof. It threatened fines if the debris (i.e., the flag) did not go within 10 days. But Mr. McDonel, 32, a logistics operation manager, has vowed to fight the order. “It’s a patriotic gesture,” he said of his banner. “It’s a historic military flag. It represents the founding fathers. It shows this nation was born out of an idea.” The Avalon Village Community Association, which sent the letter, takes a strict interpretation of the state statute that allows Arizonans the right to fly a variety of flags — the Stars and Stripes, the state flag, flags representing Indian nations as well as the official flags of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. The listing of acceptable flags stems from a dispute several years ago in nearby Chandler, Ariz., in which a woman with a son serving in Iraq was challenged by her homeowners’ association for flying the Marine Corps flag. State legislators intervened. The Arizona law, says the homeowners’ association butting heads with Mr. McDonel, does not give residents authorization to fly anything else on their properties. That means no pennants bearing sports team logos, no Jolly Rogers, no rainbow banners celebrating gay pride and no historic flags showing a coiled rattlesnake bearing its fangs. As Javier B. Delgado, a lawyer for the homeowners’ association, put it in a statement on the association’s Web site: “Should the Arizona Legislature expand the Community Association Flag Display Statute to include the Gadsden Flag, the Association will accommodate Mr. McDonel’s desire to display it. Bottom-line, anyone considering residing in a community association should carefully review the association’s governing documents beforehand to ensure that the community is a good fit for them.” Mr. McDonel knows the rules well since, until July, he was a member of his homeowners’ association’s board of directors. He resigned in a dispute with the board’s president and shortly thereafter received his first debris notice. That one concerned a treadmill that he had left on his porch, which he admits was a violation of the rules. His second debris warning, which came weeks after that, concerned the flag, which had been up for about six months. “If this is a grudge, it’s sad that the funds that the homeowners put into the association are being wasted on such a petty matter,” Mr. McDonel said. Mr. Delgado, whose law firm represents thousands of homeowners’ associations, denies that any dispute among board members led to the citation of Mr. McDonel’s property. “There is still the potential for dialogue on both sides,” he said, indicating that no fines had yet been levied. The homeowners’ association represents a community of tract homes in what had been a sprawling agricultural area. A survey of Mr. McDonel’s neighbors after the dispute drew the attention of the local news media revealed more concern about the television trucks that have been parking in front of his property than the flag flapping on his roof. After Mr. McDonel’s standoff was picked up by the media, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona jumped in on Mr. McDonel’s side, arguing that homeowners’ associations do not have the right to “hijack” the free speech rights of their members. The A.C.L.U. fired off a letter to the association on Monday that seeks a meeting with Mr. Delgado to resolve the matter without going as far as a lawsuit. “We’re urging the homeowners’ association to adopt a less limited interpretation of the statute,” said Dan Pochoda, the legal director for the civil liberties group. “The Gadsden flag meets the spirit of the law. It’s a historic military flag. Many consider it the original American flag, before the Stars and Stripes.” As for the political significance that the flag has taken on in this election season, Mr. Pochoda was uninterested, saying that Mr. McDonel’s motivation for flying the flag was irrelevant to the dispute. “We didn’t ask him,” Mr. Pochoda said. As the flag becomes more popular — it was on prominent display on the Washington Mall last weekend during a rally organized by the conservative commentator Glenn Beck — more such disputes are expected. Already, a Colorado homeowner flying the same flag is locked in a standoff with his homeowners’ association. And in Connecticut, a group of retired Marines is challenging the Capitol Police’s decision blocking the Gadsden flag from being flown over the State Capitol.
Subscribe to *Jack-Booted Thugs*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-91) not displayed.
.
.
.
#92. To: Suzanne (#89)
Like I said. When all the neighborhoods adopt this. You wont be able to bitch about it. Would it be lawful for every neighborhood to adopt these standards? Then we would all have to live by them because we couldn't go somewhere else. Then the constitution would be meaningless.
Yep. States first. In this case they exercised it.
Quit lying. It is not BEFORE it is OR.
Just for comparison, here's a snippet from New Mexico's Human Rights Act: It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to: (1) refuse to sell, rent, assign, lease or sublease or offer for sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease any housing accommodation or real property to any person or to refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; Of course, now you say that only God can make the laws and, apparently, you've got the pipeline to that connection. Meanwhile, I'll continue to believe that Human Rights are part of God's will.
What does the word "respectively" mean, doofus?
trumped by the right to own private property.
Elected state officials passed these laws. If enough of the people weren't happy with the laws, they would have elected new officials to repeal these laws. Since these laws are still standing, it sounds like the laws and people's wishes are in harmony.
It means that people are superior to the state. That their rights are superior to the states interests.
So if the elected leaders pass a law that says whites only drinking fountains it will be ok under what you just wrote.
You're a good teacher stone, we need more like you... Anyway, do you have any property that you rent out, if I may ask?
Not at the moment.
Thanks. What it comes down is that these people don't believe in Americas founding principals. They prefer Marx and Darwin.
No sex on the front lawn, Murron.
#93. To: A K A Stone (#90)
(Edited)
#94. To: war (#93)
#95. To: A K A Stone, war (#91)
no no no. It is a god given right. nothing to do with state or fed govt.
#96. To: A K A Stone (#94)
#97. To: Suzanne (#95)
#98. To: A K A Stone (#94)
Quit lying. It is not BEFORE it is OR.
#99. To: war (#96)
#100. To: Suzanne (#98)
Elected state officials passed these laws. If enough of the people weren't happy with the laws, they would have elected new officials to repeal these laws. Since these laws are still standing, it sounds like the laws and people's wishes are in harmony.
#101. To: A K A Stone (#97)
"trumped by the right to own private property."
#102. To: Murron (#101)
#103. To: Murron (#101)
#104. To: Murron (#101)
Anyway, do you have any property that you rent out, if I may ask?
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#105. To: A K A Stone (#102)
I have a good reason for asking, because there are some property owners that rent homes, and if they don't look into the laws with a fine tooth, they could end up losing it... Are you game to go along with what I did to a property owner? Don't get me wrong, I was a renter for about 19yrs, and it took that long to educate myself on both sides.
#106. To: A K A Stone (#97)
You're not claiming a right. You're claiming a power. 10A does not mention any right.
#107. To: Murron (#101)
Too much zinc oxide on your nose? Looking for a quick fix?
You're a good teacher stone, we need more like you...
#108. To: A K A Stone (#100)
That would kind of go against our basic tenents of "All men are created equal" now, wouldn't it? You can't play the state vs. the feds for your own amusement. The Supreme Court struck down the Jim Crow stuff. You know, that other branch of government.
So if the elected leaders pass a law that says whites only drinking fountains it will be ok under what you just wrote.
#109. To: A K A Stone (#99)
Uh...no...not even the author of that amendment viewed it as you do. ..."the States, respectively..." The meaning is clear, in deference to state power, or, such a political subdivision lacking, the people.
It means that people are superior to the state. That their rights are superior to the states interests.
#110. To: A K A Stone (#103)
I've been catching up, and I see what you mean, but that is the thinking of the average person who just don't know any better, and don't want to know....
Thanks. What it comes down is that these people don't believe in Americas founding principals. They prefer Marx and Darwin.
#111. To: Suzanne, war, mininggold, murron, fred mertz (#108)
Why do you only quote part of it. Go all the way to LIBERTY. Liberty is being able to own something and sell it to whoever you want to at an agreeable price. Now a question for you. Forget the law for a sec. Would you be more free or less free as an individual if you were able to sell to whoever you wanted for whatver reason you wanted? More free or less free?
That would kind of go against our basic tenents of "All men are created equal" now, wouldn't it? You can't play the state vs. the feds for your own amusement.
#112. To: war, A K A Stone, Murron, Fred Mertz (#109)
OK, I'm going to change my stance a bit. An HOA contract is lawful under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." The courts have interpreted the "impairing the Obligation of Contracts" as also pertaining to private contracts. So, we're talking the big kahuna here: the main body of the constitution. Take that 10th Amendment. Justices have reinforced the concept that, under natural law, individuals have a right to act as free agents. So, if you agree to a contract, you agree to the contract (as long as that contract doesn't violate statues). Over centuries, the courts have upheld (when there has been shown to be a pressing need to do so) the right of states to add "statues" to this overarching contract provision. Thus, states have statutes on the books outlawing discrimination and other things. So, an HOA contract is a contract and contracts are covered by the U.S. Constitution and later court decisions have allowed states to pass statutes putting parameters on what constitutes an acceptable contract. I found some of this info at: http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/64- private-contracts.html
#113. To: A K A Stone (#112)
And go ahead, Stone, tell me how bringing up U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 makes me a communist and someone who doesn't respect our founding fathers...
#114. To: A K A Stone (#111)
Oddly missing from the declaration was the oft cited Lockean phrase, "...life, liberty and property."
Why do you only quote part of it. Go all the way to LIBERTY.
#115. To: A K A Stone, Suzanne (#111) (Edited)
stone: "Liberty is being able to own something and sell it to whoever you want to at an agreeable price." Equality and Liberty, those are wonderful things we have, but they have to be tempered with responsiblity so you don't tread on another persons Freedom. Suzanne, no one agrees more with you more about us all being equal than I do, but God forbid, if I didn't want to sell my property to you because I didn't like the color of your skin, that does not give you the right to try and force me, you have the freedom to buy from someone else, you have NO Right to tread on my freedom....I know that may sound awful, but that's a fact!
Suzanne: "That would kind of go against our basic tenents of "All men are created equal" now, wouldn't it? You can't play the state vs. the feds for your own amusement."
#116. To: Murron (#115)
So your treading on her freedom trumps her freedom to trump on your freedom... Got it.
#117. To: A K A Stone (#111)
I would be just as free if I were to approach any attractive male and fondle him: it might serve my purposes, but it would violate his.
Would you be more free or less free as an individual if you were able to sell to whoever you wanted for whatver reason you wanted? More free or less free?
#118. To: Suzanne (#113)
Do you know what amendments to the constitution are? They happen when 2/3 of the Senate and House and 3/4 of the states pass bill and call it an amendment to the constitution. When that happens it changes the constitution. Then 10th amendment passed after article 1 section 10 clause 1 was already passed. Therefore the 10th amendment is superior and any conflict the 10th amendment wins.
And go ahead, Stone, tell me how bringing up U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 makes me a communist and someone who doesn't respect our founding fathers...
#119. To: A K A Stone (#118) (Edited)
What is in the second clause of 10A, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES.... You know what that means? That if there is already something in the USCON then it takes precedence.
Do you know what amendments to the constitution are? They happen when 2/3 of the Senate and House and 3/4 of the states pass bill and call it an amendment to the constitution. When that happens it changes the constitution. Then 10th amendment passed after article 1 section 10 clause 1 was already passed. Therefore the 10th amendment is superior and any conflict the 10th amendment wins.
#120. To: war (#119)
The ultimate authority is the people. They keep all their rights.
#121. To: A K A Stone (#118)
There is no conflict. The amendment says powers not granted to the federal government go to the state or the people. The Obligation of Contracts is granted to the federal government. Bottom line: signing a contract is serious business and protected by the U.S. Constitution.
any conflict the 10th amendment wins
#122. To: A K A Stone (#120)
10A states forgoing POWERS...
#123. To: Suzanne (#121)
No the bottom line is that you have a right to buy property. Owning property means you own it and choose the rules. People signing it gave up their constitutional rights under DURESS. Therefore any part of the contract giving up constitutional rights is null and void.
Bottom line: signing a contract is serious business and protected by the U.S. Constitution.
#124. To: A K A Stone (#123)
The U.S. Constitution says what it says about contracts. You can't alter that. Over time, courts have upheld the right for states to put parameters (when there is a demonstrated need to do so) on this provision. Still, as a free agent, you can choose to sign a contract or not--and I'll defend your right to do so. But, if you sign a contract, well, you've signed a contract. What you're saying has absolutely no basis in the constitution. I found something about contracts in the constitution. You're being emotional, I'm being factual.
Therefore any part of the contract giving up constitutional rights is null and void.
#125. To: Suzanne (#124)
You're wrong. I'm right. As usual. :)
#126. To: A K A Stone (#125)
Get a hankie dearie, you're wrong. Contracts are covered by the U.S. Constitution. So sayeth the constitution.
#127. To: A K A Stone (#125)
BTW, your "wanting" to be right is not the same as "being" right. My Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 trumps you on this one.
I'm right.
#128. To: Murron (#115)
You know, Murron, I don't know you...really, but I know enough about you to understand that you believe in equality--particularly among the races. And, what I'm about to say isn't about what you might or might not do; because at the end of the day, I think you'd always come down on the side of being fair (although you're a firebrand). So here goes: If I had a skin color that you disapproved of and wanted to buy your house, I don't think you should have the right to refuse my competitive offer (on the basis on my skin; credit score is an entirely different matter). I'm not "forcing" you to sell to me, I just want the rules to be fair--and to that end I'm going to use a sports analogy (extremely rare for me). Why is it that baseball players run the bases in a counter-clockwise fashion? Why can't each batter determine which base to run to first as long as the right number of bases are covered? Why can't the pitcher determine whether a batter should start off from first base? Some might call that freedom; some might call that unsportsmanship-like conduct. So, baseball players agree to follow certain rules...about the number of outs, the way bases are run, etc. These rules allow for consistency and for a level playing field. All the players abide by these rules (with the help of an umpire) and know what to expect. It's fair (although umps sometimes make bum calls). So, why can't it be about being fair? How does a level playing field hurt anyone?
Suzanne, no one agrees more with you more about us all being equal than I do, but God forbid, if I didn't want to sell my property to you because I didn't like the color of your skin, that does not give you the right to try and force me, you have the freedom to buy from someone else, you have NO Right to tread on my freedom....I know that may sound awful, but that's a fact!
#129. To: Suzanne (#128)
That's right, you don't know a g-damn thing about me, but you assume you do, and we all know (at least some do) that Assumption is the mother of F*ckups! Missy, you can take that race card, and shove it straight up your ass, wanna know why? Because I'm the g-mother of black and mexican children, RACE has NOTHING to do with personal Liberty and Freedoms...so STFU! Even tho I would NEVER refuse to sell to another person because of their race, there in NO WAY in hell you, or anyone could force me to. Girl you better bone up on what Stone's been trying to teach you, cause my Constitutional lawyer would have you for lunch! No offence intended!
You know, Murron, I don't know you...really, but I know enough about you to understand that you believe in equality--particularly among the races
#130. To: Suzanne (#128)
First~ Please...please, forgive me for misunderstanding your post and going into a stupid rant, I think it was more out of habit because of some stupid people who don't know me, but assume they do because they misundertand me...lol I humbly apologize, and hope you forgive me! Now! You're right, I would Never refuse to sell because of your race, but you're wrong, dead wrong in my Right as a private property owner to make that choice, it has nothing to do with what's right, it has to do with individual Freedoms, my Inalienable Right, given to me by my creator, not meted to me by some federal government, and I will protect these rights to my death... No one ever said life was fair, but you don't force yourself on others and take from them, or it might come back and bite you! JMHO! Again Suzanne, I hope you forgive me! &;-)
If I had a skin color that you disapproved of and wanted to buy your house, I don't think you should have the right to refuse my competitive offer (on the basis on my skin; credit score is an entirely different matter). I'm not "forcing" you to sell to me, I just want the rules to be fair--and to that end I'm going to use a sports analogy (extremely rare for me).
#131. To: Murron (#129)
Missy, you can take that race card, and shove it straight up your ass, wanna know why? Because I'm the g-mother of black and mexican children, RACE has NOTHING to do with personal Liberty and Freedoms...so STFU! Murron, I said what I did based on a certain memory of things--perhaps I was wrong. I thought I remember you asking someone on LP not to use the "N" word because you found it offensive...because your family was mixed race and you loved them all. I liked that. That's what I remembered. Go ahead and tell me that I'm wrong. As for "STFU," no, I won't. Don't attempt to be the "thought police" on my comments, either. I will voice my opinions just like you will. It's part of that level playing field thing. And race has something to do with it if people are denied their personal freedoms because of it. As for Stone, I found a basis for contracts listed in the actual constitution and he didn't know that--and, frankly, I didn't know that either until today because I did some checking. Stone is not my teacher; I'll tackle that one on my own or seek out real experts.
That's right, you don't know a g-damn thing about me, but you assume you do, and we all know (at least some do) that Assumption is the mother of F*ckups!
#132. To: (#129)
Gawd Stone, can you please delete #129..? Thanks~
.
.
.
Comments (133 - 228) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]