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: 161348
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 (1-133) not displayed.
.
.
.
#134. To: Suzanne (#133)
BTW, I remember some of this stuff because I believe you live in an area where some of my friends do (Cincinnati-ish). So, some things in my memory bank struck a chord. I have an Appalachian background; you know how all that ties together. Gawd..thank you, I am sooo ashamed! I haven't had a damn dring in a month of sundays, maybe that's my problem...lol Cincinnati's a hell-hole, badeye could tell ya more about that, he's on the edge of it, haven't been there in years. I'm here in the Cumberland Falls area, beautiful Laurel Lake is in my back yard. The Appalachia's are beautiful, but damn if I'd ever wonder into some of the areas....aha...
Don't be...we all go a little off-course sometimes. I did with you recently. At least I'm glad to know that I (somewhat) remembered correctly. I know the Cumberland Falls area. That whole stretch of Kentucky/West Virginia/northern Tennessee is where my family comes from. I moved west...an area can handle only so many firebrands (LOL).
that's why I live on a 45-50 acre ranch, no neighbors to kill in the heat of passion...&;-)
There was no one holding a gun to their head. They could walk away. Duress is defined as the use or threat of force to compel a person to perform an act that they would not under no such threat.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Rights don't have to be listed, but gov powers DO. You Bush/hObama nanny statists would like to control everything, ain't gonna happen!
You know that IX is not X. Correct?
LOL..hondo darlin, that's a contradiction in terms, if war, and those who think like him, had their way, they wouldn't be in 'control' of anything, wonder if they've thought about that? &;-)
If you can't understand 9, you'll never figure 10 out.
Are you fucking stupid? I'm not the one who was promoting 10 as being applicable here. Stone was. I'm the one telling him it's not. Read the goddam thread, asshole, or sulk away; I don't care...
There you go...being logical and defensible again.
Your stupidity speaks for itself. That's a polite way of saying "Shut the fuck up."
war: "Duress is defined as the use or threat of force to compel a person to perform an act that they would not under no such threat." "There you go...being logical and defensible again." Yessssssssss....like forcing another to sell their property to a person with purple skin, even if they didn't want to....lol By jove I think he's got it...NOT!
You're dealing with people who believe it is a sacrosanct right for them to deny someone else rights and now you have this moron quoting the 9th amendment to me.
Stipulating that property rights exist without limitation and all share the same rights. Your right to sell cannot be superior to someone's right to acquire. Nor can your right to acquire be greater than anyone elses right to acquire. If all property rights exist in an equal sphere then you have NO RIGHT to claim a superior position by claiming you can discriminate when you sell.
You know, this has been an interesting thread for me--and sent me on a search where I learned more about the body of the constitution. Most of us know the constitution more by amendments than by the actual text within the body. So, I was intrigued by the subject of "private contracts" and their place within the U.S. Constitution. What I found about contracts and what I posted has been defensible by reference to court rulings, etc. It's been a good mental exercise. Now, we have the 9th Amendment. This seems to say that not all rights are listed here (within the amendment), but could be added later on because, well, times change and our perception of rights might change. What it doesn't say is that there are secret rights that someone can proclaim at any moment--without consensus--and upon which that individual will use to defend whatever action he or she has taken.
Level playing field...just want a level playing field. What's wrong with that?
They don't understand that rights are what level the playing field and why the word "equal" is so vital.
The right to privacy is what 9A is all about...
Yeah, even before we began talking I've been scrounging the net digging info into "private contracts", and I've only touched the issue. Even tho I may not join in most of the ..cough..cough...discussions on these issues here, doesn't mean for a moment I'm not soakin em up, I learn something new everday. What you need NEVER FORGET is, The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, delineates specific rights that are reserved for U.S. citizens and residents. No state can remove or abridge rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Times and Perceptions do change, men change, our founders, the wisest men on the face of this earth, they knew this too, they knew exactly what was in the hearts and minds of men, and they did their best to protect us from them. No one ever said it was going to be easy, and most of the time it certainly isn't fare, but once we give up just one of our unalienable rights, we will never get it back again. "WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to desolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Does a good, stiff drink go with it....?
Heck, bring in the leveler and I'll pay for the drinks AND snacks. I haven't done a complete, intensive study of the amendments, but upon first review, it would be that the amendments do not contradict or replace certain language within the constitution. Instead, they clarify, expand the meaning of, or add on to what is already there.
As we both now know, contracts are covered by the constitution (allowing for state statutes); the 10th Amendment and any other amendment (or issue) on this topic is a non- issue.
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. (above)People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123). Chancellor Kent defines the "absolute rights" of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained. I meant to ask you about these contracts you're talking about, are they oral, or have they already been signed by both parties, and now the seller had second thoughts and is backing out? And if so, what is the sellers reason for backing out? You may have explained this already, but this thread is so long, I wouldn't know which post to look up. Thanks!
I understand. The basic principle of contracts is covered under Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, which basically states that states won't impair (void) a contract (you sign it, you must live according to it). The following is my interpretation based on what I've read: Over time (centuries) that somewhat vague mandate was qualified, through statutes, by specific states according to their individual needs. It's those statutes that may allow an individual to back out of an individual contract within a certain time period, or make a certain contract invalid because it runs contrary to state laws about discrimination, etc. How a contract can become null and void will depend on the statutes of the state in which you live. From what I've read, the initial concern was that colonists who owed legitimate debts to foreign countries might appeal to their respective colonies or states to have the debt wiped away. A given colony or state might be tempted to take such an action (particularly for influential land owners); however, forgiving this debt might antagonize a foreign power/political ally. Therefore, in the constitution, the feds stated that the states can't just step in and forgive such a debt willy-nilly. The debt was the debt. After we became less concerned about PERSONAL debts owed to foreign powers, the language became altered and more statutes were introduced on a state-by-state basis that became more protective of consumers.
Well! Thanks for scrambling what little brains I had left..lol I'm sorry Suzanne, in order for me to make any sort of personal judgement on this I'd have to at least know a little something about what the contract consist of (if it's 2 citizens and not government), and who's doing what to whom. I've done some research on "Intitlement Rights" (discrimination) v. the Rights of Individual. If I knew more, I could tell you whether it was invalid because of ' msrepresentation', 'fraud in inducement', 'fraud in the factum', I've found several ways to get myself out of a contract even if it did run against 'state laws', set down by minorties who think they can penalize me, and punish me for crimes I've never commited (example), by taking something away ones persons rights in order to satify group intitlements. LOL...I hope I understood you right....
This is a exapmle of why we will NEVER have total Ayn Rand style Objectivist Libertairianism. Without the Government / State these "Home Owner's Associations", similar Associations and giant Corporations will become the State. We never can have a totally Libertarian society while we are still in our sinful natures. But then Ayn Rand based her form of Libertarianism on ATHEISM and EVOLUTION just like the Commies, the Fascists and the "Progressives" did.
"Home Owner's Associations" are just a way to bring about SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM and PROGRESSIVEISM through supposidly private means. Contract or no contract "Home Owners Association" leaders are TRAITORS TO AMERICA and should be put on trial and lose their American Citizenship or be SWUNG just like any other "Progressive" DONKEY TRAITOR!!! You know the REAL reason why these "Home Owner's Accociation" leaders hate the Gadsden Flag, because it tells the "Progressive" JACKASSES, DONT TREAD ON ME!! that's why.
You need to study Thomas Jefferson and INALIENABLE rights. Rights are inalienable.
Jefferson never enumerated property as an inalienable right nor did he enumerate laisse faire capitalism as one.
Not all rights are inalienable. Your right to swing your fist ends before it reaches my nose.
The above is for you...sorry...
If you weren't so F'n stupid you'd be able to connect the dots. The un-enumerated (9th amendment) inalienable right to fly or burn flags, is passed to THE PEOPLE under the 10th amendment, not the States. IMO that's the gist of AK's argument, and the Supreme Court agrees with him. The supreme court has already declared flag burning a civil right, so if the homeowner wanted to burn a few Che Guevara and Kenyan flags while he's flying the Gadsden that'd be cool too. Flag rights are settled law, deal with it.
Dickhead...you've created an argument of which I am not even a part. Stone is claiming that the 10th amendment a) allows him to do what ever he wants and b) that because it's an amendment it trumps anything in Articles 1-VI. He's also claiming that this guy's rights are being violated even though he has agreed to live in a private association under the specific rules of the association. THAT is the argument. If you want to discuss the ninth amendment, start another thread. PS: The general right to fly a flag is protected UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT not the Ninth. DEAL WITH THAT.
If you want to discuss the ninth amendment, start another thread. Dickbreath.... If you want to ban flying the Gadsden flag, start another thread AND pass a Constitutional amendment. My proposed amendment to ban spandex wearers from the voting booth, has a better chance of passing. Americans like the Gadsden flag a lot more, than they like fags in spandex.
Actually I meant the 9th. I wasn't with it yesterday. But the 10th also applies. The 9th moreso.
I'm beginning to think there are actually some here, after all these years lurking on the net, who don't know the difference between our God given rights and those who think Entitlement Thieves, Special Interest Thieves, and Affirmative Action Thieves trump Individual Rights. They honestly think, that just because some asshole passed a bill, an ordinance, or law for these groups, that it must be so....go figure!
This former bicycle racer, who still wears spandex when riding the back roads would pound the snot out of you if you came up to me making sneering remarks assuming you know why some athletes wear clothing made with it. I've had car drivers scream insults because they did not like cycle shorts and jerseys. Go to a road race or criteruim start/finish line and call all the surly and muscular guys that they are fags for shaving their legs and wearing spandex. Let me know where and when you do this if you decide to commit suicide. I'll videotape it and put the snuff piece on You Tube for ya.
You still crack me up, Ferret, after all these years. I think you've got me nearly on your side.
You know, Murron, you're one of the people I'd like to have a drink with. You are a firebrand, but I sort of like that (being a redhead myself). We'd probably yell over drinks, but would end up laughing.
#135. To: Murron (#134)
Gawd..thank you, I am sooo ashamed!
#136. To: Suzanne (#135)
(Edited)
...an area can handle only so many firebrands (LOL).
#137. To: A K A Stone (#123)
People signing it gave up their constitutional rights under DURESS.
#138. To: war (#106)
(Edited)
10A does not mention any right.
#139. To: hondo68 (#138)
#140. To: hondo68, war (#138)
"You Bush/hObama nanny statists would like to control everything, ain't gonna happen!"
#141. To: war (#139)
#142. To: hondo68 (#141)
(Edited)
#143. To: war (#137)
Duress is defined as the use or threat of force to compel a person to perform an act that they would not under no such threat.
#144. To: Murron (#140)
#145. To: Suzanne, war (#143)
#146. To: Suzanne (#143)
#147. To: Murron (#145)
#148. To: war, A K A Stone, Murron, All (#146)
#149. To: Murron, war, A K A Stone, hondo68, all (#145)
#150. To: Suzanne (#149)
#151. To: Suzanne (#148)
#152. To: Suzanne (#148)
So, I was intrigued by the subject of "private contracts" and their place within the U.S. Constitution. What I found about contracts and what I posted has been defensible by reference to court rulings, etc. It's been a good mental exercise.
#153. To: Suzanne (#149)
Level playing field...just want a level playing field. What's wrong with that?
#154. To: Murron (#153)
Does a good, stiff drink go with it....?
#155. To: war, hondo68 (#146)
quoting the 9th amendment to me
#156. To: All (#152)
#157. To: Suzanne (#148)
So, I was intrigued by the subject of "private contracts" and their place within the U.S. Constitution. What I found about contracts and what I posted has been defensible by reference to court rulings, etc. It's been a good mental exercise.
#158. To: Murron (#157)
You may have explained this already, but this thread is so long, I wouldn't know which post to look up.
#159. To: Suzanne (#158)
It's those statutes that may allow an individual to back out of an individual contract within a certain time period, or make a certain contract invalid because it runs contrary to state laws about discrimination,
#160. To: A K A Stone (#13)
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#161. To: Suzanne (#128)
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#162. To: Suzanne (#155)
#163. To: A K A Stone (#162)
#164. To: All (#163)
Rights are inalienable.
#165. To: All (#163)
#166. To: war, A K A Stone (#142)
(Edited)
Are you fucking stupid?
#167. To: hondo68 (#166)
(Edited)
#168. To: war, A K A Stone, Coral Snake, Murron, Suzanne (#167)
(Edited)
Dickhead...
#169. To: war (#167)
#170. To: A K A Stone (#169)
#171. To: hondo68 (#168)
"My proposed amendment to ban spandex wearers from the voting booth, has a better chance of passing. Americans like the Gadsden flag a lot more, than they like fags in spandex."
#172. To: Ferret Mike (#171)
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#173. To: A K A Stone (#169)
Then why did you quote the 10th?
.
.
.
Comments (174 - 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]