man's flag confiscated for a day for flying it upside-down.

[MobBoss]

Find an alternate method that punishes cities/states/feds when they break the constitution, then.

Its already in place, but I would view such a lawsuit as frivilous myself (in other words, I am not sure that this actually 'breaks' the constitution in the manner you mean). The guy wants to be a jerk on the 4th of July...gets people upset...so the cops take down his flag for a single (as in ONE) day and then give it back after the 4th. And your solution is for the guy to ride his waaaaaambulance all the way to a courtroom. Cry me a river.

 

[Berzerker]

I see what Mobby is saying, but yeah this just rubs me wrong. Sure, I don't like what he's doing, and he's stretching the 'distress' use of a flag like this beyond any reasonable interpretation, but it is his flag and his property and unfortunately we don't have a flag protection amendment yet, so I have to say the city is wrong.

the local bureaucraps wont issue him a license after he spent wads of cash to build a business, thats good enough for me. It aint his fault a bunch of uber patriots dont know what an upside down flag means...

and the notion this was about a disruption Obviously it disrupted the day of a handful of cops who went and stole his flag. They and the DA need to be relieved of their jobs preserving our Constitution.

 

[Racsoviale]

Wait...wasnt texas originally a spanish colony, and after that a part of mexico, and before all of that inhabited by the great plains indians? thats quite a lot of non-whites who by your definition(candle) would be true texans(living there for more than 4 generations)...this would mean you infact would be the illegal immigrant, since they would have been there way longer than you.

is there a such vocal political minority in the rest of the south? to me it is quite baffling, it would be the same as if we europeans walked around proclaiming "we want colonialism and imperialism back"

on topic: one of my friends once flew the international peace flag in his allotment garden, he was quickly asked to take it down(in the very polite/ordering way community leaders do) since it disturbed the harmony...flagrules are stupid

 

[Cutlass]

But Bill, you don't think the Feds can violate the Constitution. They do it all the time and you say its fine because States' Rights is dumb.

It's not because States Rights is dumb, it's because States Rights is unconstitutional. See the difference?

 

[Zack]

To anyone who's wondering, though it it obvious, candle's vigilante/conspiracy group represents an extremely small minority of Texans.

And States Rights is unconstitutional, like Cutlass said.

 

[holy king]

get rid of the stars. problem solved forever.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Village President John Deschane, 60, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said many people in town believe it's disrespectful to fly the flag upside down.

And you have every right to believe that dear Sir. You are now exercising your right to freedom of speech.

"If he wants to protest, let him protest but find a different way to do it," Deschane said.

And now you are limiting another person's freedom of speech. And that's more disrespectful to the values on which your country is founded then flying a flag upside down.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, the 10th amendment is unconstitutional!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said

 

[MobBoss]

the local bureaucraps wont issue him a license after he spent wads of cash to build a business, thats good enough for me. It aint his fault a bunch of uber patriots dont know what an upside down flag means...

Here is a clue....perhaps, just perhaps, getting the license before sinking a ton of cash into would have been a good idea....

and the notion this was about a disruption Obviously it disrupted the day of a handful of cops who went and stole his flag. They and the DA need to be relieved of their jobs preserving our Constitution.

You dont think people would get upset on the 4th of July? I think you greatly naive if you dont. If it hadnt pissed more than a few people off, nothing would have been done.

Yeah, lets fire everyone for actually keeping the peace. Real nice message there.

 

[Red Door]

Here is a clue....perhaps, just perhaps, getting the license before sinking a ton of cash into would have been a good idea....

That's not exactly how it works...

 

[MobBoss]

That's not exactly how it works...

Of course it is. Guy should have realized there simply isnt any gurantee for a liquor license and worked that fact into his business plan. He didnt and the failure is on him, not the city.

 

[Red Door]

Of course it is. Guy should have realized there simply isnt any gurantee for a liquor license and worked that fact into his business plan. He didnt and the failure is on him, not the city.

But you can't get a license without a business in the first place. In order to get a license, you need to sink thousands of dollars into the business. I'm not saying he is rightfully angry (and your second post is fully correct in the matter), but suggesting that he get a license before he opens his business is kind of silly.

 

[MobBoss]

But you can't get a license without a business in the first place. In order to get a license, you need to sink thousands of dollars into the business. I'm not saying he is rightfully angry (and your second post is fully correct in the matter), but suggesting that he get a license before he opens his business is kind of silly.

Its not silly. He could have taken some steps to test the waters to see if such a license would have been approved in the first place or not. Its called 'research'. From the story it simply sounds like he worked under a lot of false assumptions and it cost him.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I simply don't understand making liquor licenses difficult to acquire. It simply breeds corruption and creates a false market for their purchase.

 

[MobBoss]

I simply don't understand making liquor licenses difficult to acquire. It simply breeds corruption and creates a false market for their purchase.

You mean you dont think there are valid reasons for refusing them?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I believe I pointed out a few pages ago that we don't actually know why he couldn't get the license. The article doesn't say.

If such a thing happened here, we would expect him to appeal the decision with the relevant government department responsible for the refusal, whether that results in going to City Hall/Planning Commission (for zoning issues), Board of Health, RCMP, or the provincial department responsible (used to be the Alberta Liquor Control Board, but since it was deregulated umpteen years ago, I don't remember what they call it now).

What we would NOT expect is that he would fly a flag upside down and whine about his "rights" under whatever constitutional amendment applied. That won't solve anything, and just makes him look like a petulant brat. It's no different from a 4-year-old holding his breath until Mommy gives him the cookie he wants.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If such a thing happened here, we would expect him to appeal the decision with the relevant government department responsible for the refusal, whether that results in going to City Hall/Planning Commission (for zoning issues), Board of Health, RCMP, or the provincial department responsible (used to be the Alberta Liquor Control Board, but since it was deregulated umpteen years ago, I don't remember what they call it now).

Sounds like a cinch. No wonder you can't buy beer in a convenience store in your country...

What we would NOT expect is that he would fly a flag upside down and whine about his "rights" under whatever constitutional amendment applied. That won't solve anything, and just makes him look like a petulant brat. It's no different from a 4-year-old holding his breath until Mommy gives him the cookie he wants.

All that based on state laws and details of this case you admit to not knowing anything about...

 

[I'm Cleo!]

The freedom to express opinions that upset people is the whole point of the First Amendment, which is why the "fighting words" doctrine is so terribly narrow (it has to be "likely to produce imminent lawless action."). There's no need to protect speech with which everyone agrees.

Cleo

 

[MobBoss]

The freedom to express opinions that upset people is the whole point of the First Amendment, which is why the "fighting words" doctrine is so terribly narrow (it has to be "likely to produce imminent lawless action."). There's no need to protect speech with which everyone agrees.

Cleo

Which is precisely why they still allow KKK rallies/parades....right up to the point where it causes a riot, and then its halted and broken up....

There is such a thing as not allowing something to occur over concerns of public safety and keeping the peace.