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: 161099
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 (1-162) not displayed.
.
.
.
#163. To: A K A Stone (#162)
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.
#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?
#174. To: Fred Mertz (#172)
He's always cracked me up.
#175. To: hondo68 (#168) (Edited)
I don't want to ban any flag nor would I be stupid enough to live in a place that not only tells me how tall my grass can grow, what hedges I can plant and WHAT GODDAMN FLAG I CAN FLY but makes me sign a piece of paper in which I pledge not to.
#176. To: war (#174)
I got another job offer. Summbitch....it ain't right.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#177. To: Fred Mertz (#176)
BASTARDS!!!
#178. To: war (#177)
They want me to rediscover the world. It ain't right.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#179. To: war (#177)
Here, you might get a laugh out of this...
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#180. To: Fred Mertz (#179) (Edited)
Yukko being the whiney bitch that he is because he didn't get a PING. As if he doesn't read every goddam post anyway.
#181. To: Fred Mertz (#178)
DOUBLE BASTARDS!!!!
#182. To: war (#181)
Exactly.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#183. To: A K A Stone, war, hondo68 (#169)
So, Stone, Hondo, you're both big believers in the 9th amendment, ehh? That's fine. Just realize, it's the foundation for overcoming bans on birth control and for the "right to privacy" (Roe v Wade). From http://legal- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment: Until 1965 no Supreme Court decision made more than a passing reference to the Ninth Amendment. In 1958, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote that the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment "are still a mystery." Nevertheless, the dormant Ninth Amendment experienced a renaissance in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965). In Griswold the Supreme Court was asked to review the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that banned adult residents from using Birth Control and prohibited anyone from assisting others to violate this law. In the majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court, rejected the notion that the judiciary is obligated to enforce only those rights that are expressly enumerated in the Constitution. On several occasions in the past, Douglas wrote, the Court has recognized rights that cannot not be found in the written language of the Constitution. Only briefly discussed in Douglas's majority opinion, the Ninth Amendment was the centerpiece of Justice Arthur Goldberg's concurring opinion. The language and history of the Ninth Amendment, Goldberg wrote, demonstrate that the Framers of the Constitution intended the judiciary to protect certain unwritten liberties with the same zeal that courts must protect those liberties expressly referenced in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment, Goldberg emphasized, reflects the Framers' original understanding that "other fundamental personal rights should not be denied protection simply because they are not specifically listed" in the Constitution. Justices Hugo L. Black and Potter Stewart criticized the Court for invoking the Ninth Amendment as a basis for its decision in Griswold. The Ninth Amendment, the dissenting justices said, does not explain what unenumerated rights are retained by the people or how these rights should be identified. Nor does the amendment authorize the Supreme Court, in contrast to the president or Congress, to enforce these rights. By reading the Ninth Amendment as creating a general right to privacy, Black and Stewart suggested, the unelected justices of the Supreme Court had substituted their own subjective notions of justice, liberty, and reasonableness for the wisdom and experience of the elected representatives in the Connecticut state legislature who were responsible for passing the birth control regulation. The Griswold decision was the starting point of a continuing debate over the proper role of the Ninth Amendment in constitutional Jurisprudence. One side of the debate reads the Ninth Amendment to mean that the Constitution protects not only those liberties written into the Bill of Rights but some additional liberties found outside the express language of any one provision. The other side sees no way to identify the unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment and no objective method by which to interpret and apply such rights. Under this view, courts that interpret and apply the Ninth Amendment do so in a manner that reflects the political and personal preferences of the presiding judge. Federal courts have attempted to reach a middle ground. A number of federal courts have found that the Ninth Amendment is a rule of judicial construction, or a guideline for interpretation, and not an independent source of constitutional rights (Mann v. Meachem, 929 F. Supp. 622 [N.D.N.Y. 1996]). These courts view the Ninth Amendment as an invitation to liberally interpret the express provisions of the Constitution. However, federal courts will not recognize constitutional rights claimed to derive solely from the Ninth Amendment (United States v. Vital Health Products, 786 F. Supp. 761 [E.D. Wis. 1992]). By itself, one court held, the Ninth Amendment does not enunciate any substantive rights. Instead the amendment serves to protect other fundamental liberties that are implicit, though not mentioned, in the Bill of Rights (Rothner v. City of Chicago, 725 F. Supp. 945 [N.D. Ill. 1989]). After Griswold, federal courts were flooded with novel claims based on unenumerated rights. Almost without exception, these novel Ninth Amendment claims were rejected. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no Ninth Amendment right to resist the draft (United States v. Uhl, 436 F.2d 773 [1970]). The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that there is no Ninth Amendment right to possess an unregistered submachine gun (United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 [1976]). The Fourth Circuit Court held that the Ninth Amendment does not guarantee the right to produce, distribute, or experiment with mind-altering drugs such as marijuana (United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903 [1986]). The Eighth Circuit Court denied a claim asserting that the Ninth Amendment guaranteed Americans the right to a radiation-free environment (Concerned Citizens of Nebraska v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 970 F.2d 421 [1992]). This series of cases has led some scholars to conclude that the Ninth Amendment may be returning to a constitutional hibernation. Yet the Ninth Amendment retains some vitality. In Roe v. Wade, the federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that a state law prohibiting Abortion in all instances except to save the life of the mother violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment (314 F. Supp. 1217 [1970]). On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling, stating that the right to privacy, "whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1973]). Federal courts continue to rely on the Ninth Amendment in support of a woman's constitutional right to choose abortion under certain circumstances.
Actually I meant the 9th. I wasn't with it yesterday. But the 10th also applies. The 9th moreso.
#184. To: Suzanne (#183)
The 9th isn't a right to kill babies. There is no right to kill babies. People who support the imaginary right to kill babies should themselves be killed. After a trial for attempted murder.
#185. To: A K A Stone (#184)
Well, depending on the poll, somewhere between 55 and 60 percent of Americans support legal abortion in most cases. So, Stone, God love'ya, you've got a lot of killin' to do.
People who support the imaginary right to kill babies should themselves be killed.
#186. To: All (#183)
BTW, I mostly just wanted to point out how funny you've been with this thread in your inconsistency. First you declare HOAs and their contracts as unconstitutional. They're not. Contracts are covered by the U.S. Constitution. Then, you want to make it a states right thing (10th Amendment), saying that fair housing laws, etc. are unconstitutional. Well, even if that argument would hold water, you still wouldn't get want you want because states have their own nondiscrimination laws (the states claimed their right to do so). Then, you fall back onto the "mystery" 9th Amendment that says individuals have rights not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and you should still have the right to do what you want (flags, discriminate, etc.). But, when courts have granted rights (like the right to privacy) that you don't approve of, then it's a bad amendment. Geez, Stone, you and the Constitution just aren't getting along lately. So sorry to hear that.
#187. To: Suzanne, A K A Stone (#186)
Well, even if that argument would hold water, you still wouldn't get want you want because states have their own nondiscrimination laws (the states claimed their right to do so" The US Constitution is the supreme law for the states in the Union. Even before the Declaration of Independence was approved by the Continental Congress, instructions had gone out to the former British colonies to form state governments. In order to form such governments, state constitutions were written. A state constitution applies just to that state for which it was written. The United States Constitution applies to all of the states making up the union. A constitution is a plan that provides the rules for a government, be it state or nation. All constitutions serve several purposes. First, it sets the ideals that the beople bound by the constitution believe in and share. Second, it establishes a basic structure of government. Third, it defines the powers and duties of the government. While the state constitutions bind the people in that state, all state constitutions must abide to the United States Constitution. The US Constitution is the supreme law for the states in the Union.
Suzanne:"Then, you want to make it a states right thing (10th Amendment), saying that fair housing laws, etc. are unconstitutional.
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion"~ Albert Camus
#188. To: hondo68, war, ferret, e_type_jag, badeye (#168)
Lol, OUCH! This is an attack on a sacred synthetic material!! 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.
#189. To: Ferret Mike, hondo68 (#171)
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. That's a 15 yard penalty. Unnecessary roughness. Btw, IF you do decide to commit hari kari, Hondo, would you mind...wearing Spandex? It would it so...ironic. (hee-hee)
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.
#190. To: Suzanne (#186)
There is no right to kill babies born or unborn. How many abortions did you have liberal? Feeling a little guilty? Trying to justify your murders? Or maybe someone you know murdered their kid and you rationalized it away. Again there is no right to kill your baby. Only sickos think there is. Are you a sicko?
#191. To: Suzanne (#185)
most people are against baby murder/abortion. And I don't have any killing to do. It is the govts job to punish those who perform abortions and those who seek them.
#192. To: A K A Stone (#190)
Or maybe someone you know murdered their kid and you rationalized it away. Again there is no right to kill your baby. Only sickos think there is. Are you a sicko? How cute. You're trying to shift the focus from the fact that your whole constitutional/states rights argument about HOAs and their idiotic contracts didn't hold water. In fact, they sank like a stone. I'm not into revealing oodles of personal details on websites, but since you seem so obsessed with my "behavior," I'll answer your tacky question. Sorry to disappoint you, zealot, I did the birth control thing very well and circumvented the need to contemplate any bigger issues. Yippee for me. However, I will also say that if I had become pregnant through rape or incest, first (right after pressing charges), I would have demanded Plan B and barring that, yes, I would have had an abortion at the earliest moment. And it wouldn't bother me for a second that people like you would label me a sicko.
There is no right to kill babies born or unborn. How many abortions did you have liberal? Feeling a little guilty? Trying to justify your murders?
#193. To: Suzanne (#192)
You go girlfriend! I love you, Suzanne!
I'm not into revealing oodles of personal details on websites, but since you seem so obsessed with my "behavior," I'll answer your tacky question. Sorry to disappoint you, zealot, I did the birth control thing very well and circumvented the need to contemplate any bigger issues. Yippee for me. However, I will also say that if I had become pregnant through rape or incest, first (right after pressing charges), I would have demanded Plan B and barring that, yes, I would have had an abortion at the earliest moment. And it wouldn't bother me for a second that people like you would label me a sicko.
#194. To: meguro (#193)
Right backatcha!
I love you, Suzanne!
#195. To: Suzanne, A K A Stone (#192)
Like many other's before you Suzanne, you keep coming back to the old dead horse 'rape and incest' as an example of your argument, but you couldn't be more wrong. I think stone feels he same way, but he'll have to speak for himself, no woman should be forced to carry a child of rape and/or incest, or if her life were in danger because of she's pregnant. I agree that all three of these examples are very legitimate reasons for an abortion. Show me where stone called you a 'SICKO' because of any of these reasons! jmho!
I will also say that if I had become pregnant through rape or incest, first (right after pressing charges), I would have demanded Plan B and barring that, yes, I would have had an abortion at the earliest moment. And it wouldn't bother me for a second that people like you would label me a sicko.
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion"~ Albert Camus
#196. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#195)
You're right, Stone should speak for himself. OK Stone, how 'bout that rape/incest/life endangered thing. The ball's in your court.
I think stone feels he same way, but he'll have to speak for himself, no woman should be forced to carry a child of rape and/or incest, or if her life were in danger because of she's pregnant.
#197. To: Murron (#195)
Thanks. Sorry to pick on you about this in open forum my dear. Next time if I have a point of order, I will go to inhouse mail.
""The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion"~ Albert Camus"
#198. To: Suzanne (#186)
You should study unalienable rights.
#199. To: A K A Stone, Murron (#198)
I answered your question. Answer mine...directly and specifically. How 'bout that rape/incest/life endangered thing?
You should study unalienable rights.
#200. To: Suzanne (#199)
A woman has a right to preserve her life. If a pregnancy threatens her existence, she should be left alone if she and her loved ones decide to end the pregnancy. Incest produces an unhealthy child with a high chance of birth defects. All incest pregnancies should be terminated unless the woman decides otherwise. As for rape, I would prefer to see the child go to term and be adopted, but rape is a horrible act or violence and sometimes an abortion is necessary if the woman is so traumatized carrying the child to term would affect her mental health. Abortion is wrong, but not black and white. The views I expressed many conservative woman believe in too. In any event, I would always give more weight to the overall consensus of women as to what should be legal in abortion. After all, it's their bodies and lives most effected by carrying a child. Women seldom get enough respect, especially in areas their lives are most effected. Men have to be very careful on the abortion issue as the fine line between respect for life and the desire to control women socially, economically and politically is too easy to cross. And if the consensus if women ever is that that line is stepped over by men, they have a right to push them back to the right side of the line again.
#201. To: Suzanne (#199)
I am against abortion on demand, but first and foremost, I am very much a feminist.
#202. To: Ferret Mike (#201)
That makes you sound like a fag. Not saying you are. Sarah Palin has redefined what a feminist is.
I am very much a feminist.
.
.
.
Comments (203 - 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]