“I’ll go to jail” – Florida Veteran told to remove military flags from restaurant pro

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why not just apply for the permit and avoid all the drama? I doubt it's all that hard.

Probably some kind of principle thing.

More likely a partisan thing, conservatives attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists for some perceived political gain.

Like you just did?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I am sad to see this same abuse and bullying on a city level spread nationally. But if it compels more people to organize across cities to defend Constitutional laws and principles from being bullied over, that's a good thing I am thankful for.

For most people, if it doesn't affect them directly they don't care and that's why this is so common.

 

[Noomi]

Okay, so if those flags have been there for two years, and a new law was only passed in March, like the article says:

These flags have been here every weekend for two years, but just this week, Colosimo received a letter from the city informing him that flying the flags violates a new city code passed in March.

Then surely he should not have to take down the flags, as they were flying before this law passed?

And also if certain other flags are allowed to be flown, as it states:

The new law requires businesses to apply for a permit to display a temporary sign or banner on their property; however, the American, POW, and state flags are allowed.

Then why the refusal to allow him to fly a military flag?

 

[The Professor]

Why not just apply for the permit and avoid all the drama? I doubt it's all that hard.

I see your point, but I disagree (remember that even great minds can disagree). I believe there are so many laws, rules, regulations and ordinances than none of us could possibly know all of them. One of my favorite cartoons showed two lawyers in a room full of row after row of floor-to-ceiling shelves of books, and one lawyer turns to the other and says, “Remember when it was just the Ten Commandments?”

I would never have anticipated that displaying the various flags of the U.S. Military branches would have been a prohibited and punishable offense, and I can understand why Eddie never thought he needed a permit to do it. If I were told that what I was doing was illegal I would not have accepted the opinion as authoritative, and I can understand Eddie's position. Of course, I am admittedly not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, and I may be biased because of my USMC Service but something tells me Eddie is right. I could get all legalistic and say that the Constitutional right of freedom of speech includes not only words, but conduct (burning of the American flag, for example) and the display of the Service flags is Constitutionally protected speech, but I won't go there. For me, this is a very simple matter involving nothing more than an individual's right to show appreciation for his military comrades. If this is illegal, then, as Charles Dickens said: “The law is an arse.”

I think it is patently intellectually offenses to require permission to do anything which is an inalienable right. In my humble opinion, displaying the Service flags constitutes such a right.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay, so if those flags have been there for two years, and a new law was only passed in March, like the article says:

These flags have been here every weekend for two years, but just this week, Colosimo received a letter from the city informing him that flying the flags violates a new city code passed in March.

Then surely he should not have to take down the flags, as they were flying before this law passed?

And also if certain other flags are allowed to be flown, as it states:

The new law requires businesses to apply for a permit to display a temporary sign or banner on their property; however, the American, POW, and state flags are allowed.

Then why the refusal to allow him to fly a military flag?

I guess the same reason why the exemptions from the ACA health bill are so narrow.
They don't want responsibility for listing all the exceptions to the rule.
They want to put that burden on the people who want to petition for exceptions.

As long as govt and party leaders are not held directly responsible for the laws they pass,
If it creates a conflict or complication, that burden is on the citizens to correct it.
So this man is basically protesting that also.
he never consented to the law to begin with,
so to put the burden on him to correct what's wrong with it
is miffing him off. Now, if he's Christian, things like this can be considered persecution for the sake of being witnesses to truth and justice, even to go before Courts and leaders to stand for justice and state your case. I understand what it's like to feel torn between wanting to protest the whole thing and not go along with any of the shenanigans, and also wanting to follow all the procedures to resolve this lawfully without further compromise. I would not want to go to jail, so I'd demand to resolve this immediately without dragging it out through all those other steps. if you think 300 is expensive, jail and court time and all that costs the public more. Again I find it wrong that the City officials don't pay this cost but charge it to the citizens who pay the taxes to cover all these costs. Another reason no responsibility is taken for these poorly written policies, as long as citizens pay the costs!

 

[emilynghiem]

Why not just apply for the permit and avoid all the drama? I doubt it's all that hard.

I see your point, but I disagree (remember that even great minds can disagree). I believe there are so many laws, rules, regulations and ordinances than none of us could possibly know all of them. One of my favorite cartoons showed two lawyers in a room full of row after row of floor-to-ceiling shelves of books, and one lawyer turns to the other and says, “Remember when it was just the Ten Commandments?”

I would never have anticipated that displaying the various flags of the U.S. Military branches would have been a prohibited and punishable offense, and I can understand why Eddie never thought he needed a permit to do it. If I were told that what I was doing was illegal I would not have accepted the opinion as authoritative, and I can understand Eddie's position. Of course, I am admittedly not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, and I may be biased because of my USMC Service but something tells me Eddie is right. I could get all legalistic and say that the Constitutional right of freedom of speech includes not only words, but conduct (burning of the American flag, for example) and the display of the Service flags is Constitutionally protected speech, but I won't go there. For me, this is a very simple matter involving nothing more than an individual's right to show appreciation for his military comrades. If this is illegal, then, as Charles Dickens said: “The law is an arse.”

I think it is patently intellectually offenses to require permission to do anything which is an inalienable right. In my humble opinion, displaying the Service flags constitutes such a right.

Dear Professor: Thanks for your posts. I also know that since where City govt's treat their relationships with their residents as a business out to make more revenue, they continue to make rules that serve the City's agenda not the citizens. They become a separate entity unto themselves, and even sue or defend suits to protect their interests AGAINST the will and interests of the citizens that they are paid to serve. And the legal defenses of the City are also paid for by the citizens, though these resources are now used against them.
I see this relationship as already set up to be abused as it does not protect people equally.
So if this issue can go wrong, because how the relationship is set up to be unequal, then others can also, the whole set up is wrong to begin with.

Since you also oppose the City policy as crossing the line and violating inalienable rights that should not have to be sued for to defend against infringements,
I would love to hear your opinion on other cases, and could start a new thread for that.
like what is your opinion on a city ordinance banning volunteers or charitable groups from giving food or help to homeless people downtown, but restricting this to only registered groups that meet certain requirements very few outreach programs can meet; so does this violate the free exercise of religion for church groups who feel this is their calling to serve the poor wherever they are called to help, or does the City have authority to regulate how these services are rendered? I think that ordinance was wrong also; and the City should have provided means for ensuring the other groups can meet the requirements, but to set it up where they will be fined or banned, that discriminates against groups without equal means. I am tired of people passing laws without taking responsibility for the impact.
Would like your opinion if this should be addressed per case, or should we examine the whole process and relation between people and govt to prevent this abuse from recurring.

Thanks for your feedback and comments.
I talked with people about these city policies and was told
that it is legal to do so because the city is not required to respect constitutional laws.

it generally takes lawsuits to enforce that, so i find that ridiculous to keep having to do that. why not pass laws holding city and other officials to respect the laws and mediate conflicts BEFORE passing a contested law? I also believe any large institution with collective influence and impact on its members should be required to respect due process and equal protection of interests; so this would prevent abuses from going on by large corporations where the people would be guaranteed rights to petition to resolve grievances directly and not wait until after the fact to protest where the damage is already done or continues.

where cities and corporations have unequal power and legal resources than individual citizens affected, this is not an equally protective relationship but prone to abuses. so that is where I would question and ask how can we set up licensing through the state where such entities sign agreements to respect Constitutional due process in order to operate. how do we set up a process that is free and equally accessible to resolve conflicts to prevent violations and lawsuits that just cost more money and don't protect people equally.

 

[Politico]

Then he'll go to jail.

 

[editec]

I think the law itself is rather silly.

Heck!~ it even sounds unconstitutional to me

It is, however, a LOCAL ORDINANCE and therefore may not be subject to the constitution's 1st Amendment protections.

 

[mamooth]

If I claim the banner of my sports team is sacred, is flying it protected free speech, even if it violates zoning laws?

That is, is every single zoning law unconstitutional? Good luck getting the courts to agree with that.

Legally, the city is stuck. If they let this guy's sacred banners fly, they have to let everyone's sacred banners fly.

 

[longknife]

We had a similar situation here in Vegas a couple of years ago.

There's a chain of gasoline/car wash/convenience stores here called Terrible Herbst. The original owner was a refugee from the communist East in the 50's when he started his first service station. He was so proud of his new country that he erected a tall flagpole and hung a huge American flag on it. That's become the trademark of the company.

However, one of the sites had a flag bigger than usual and, when the wind blows, it flapped loudly. Some neighbors complained to the city and the city council ordered the flag removed. It went to court and in the end, the size of the flag was reduced.

Why do people receiving the blessings of this nation show such hate and disregard for it?

 

[Sunshine]

Why not just apply for the permit and avoid all the drama? I doubt it's all that hard.

I lived in a subdivision that prohibited 'signs.' There was a family that had a son in the military who were told to remove the signs from their lawn. They did. And painted them on their cars. This guy just needs a little imagination. Have the flags painted on the building or his car or something.

Sadly, they can prohibit him from doing this, and the landmark case is one out of Arizona regarding the American flag.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If I claim the banner of my sports team is sacred, is flying it protected free speech, even if it violates zoning laws?

That is, is every single zoning law unconstitutional? Good luck getting the courts to agree with that.

Legally, the city is stuck. If they let this guy's sacred banners fly, they have to let everyone's sacred banners fly.

That would depend on whether or not the jurisdiction had a compelling reason to do so, if the zoning requirements manifest an undue burden to exercising your fundamental rights, and if you were afforded alternate avenues of communication. Jurisdictions may zone for adult bookstores and theaters to reduce crime and protect property values, for example.

In this case, does the ordinance ban the flying of the flags in question or merely require a permit exception? Are there any fees required to apply for the permit? If the permit requirements aren’t construed as burdensome, mandating only the filing of some paperwork, then there’s no reason to deem the measure un-Constitutional.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If the law is declared unconstitutional......you are correct. If not? Tough nuts.

Nope. I am correct; period -- and without qualification.

If a law is UnConstitutional, it is UnConstitutional even BEFORE it is "declared" to be so by a Court.

And any law that is in derogation of the Constitution is a legal nullity. Void ab initio.

THAT's all there is to it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We are a nation of laws. I also think this is a stupid law. We don't have to like the laws....but we do sort of have to obey them.

This dude will probably get his way in the end. These things have a way of working themselves out.

Actually, just to be clear, none of us has to obey (sort of or otherwise) an UnConstitutional law. An UnConstitutional "law" is no law at all.

I bet Zimmerman said the same thing. McVeigh as well.

I imagine that if Zimmerman even considered the "law" he would have been RELYING on it, not complaining about it.

Are you ALWAYS so totally ******* stupid? Or do you just have a compulsive need to jump in to reaffirm your imbecility every once in a while?

 

[LoneLaugher]

We had a similar situation here in Vegas a couple of years ago.

There's a chain of gasoline/car wash/convenience stores here called Terrible Herbst. The original owner was a refugee from the communist East in the 50's when he started his first service station. He was so proud of his new country that he erected a tall flagpole and hung a huge American flag on it. That's become the trademark of the company.

However, one of the sites had a flag bigger than usual and, when the wind blows, it flapped loudly. Some neighbors complained to the city and the city council ordered the flag removed. It went to court and in the end, the size of the flag was reduced.

Why do people receiving the blessings of this nation show such hate and disregard for it?

Please. You have not come across a single person in this thread who hates this country. And you don't know the people who passed that law in Holly Hill or the people in Vegas who complained. What is wrong with you that you say something fucked up like that.

You do not HAVE TO be an asshole all the time, you know.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We'll have to wait two weeks for the city's special hearing.
In the meantime, the guy will amass over $7,000 in fines.

He will amass these fines because he is obstinate. Should the law be unconstitutional the fines should be waived. He should take the flags down and fight the law.

Dumb law, dumb man.

That law is dumb.

There is nothing dumb about that man.

WTF makes you imagine that it's "dumb" to protest against an idiotic and facially UnConstitutional "law?"

He should absolutely leave those flags flying. That's what brings it to a head. I applaud his character and his balls.

It is no surprise to me that Zona, that flaming rodent ****, would applaud your dumbass commentary.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I think the law itself is rather silly.

Heck!~ it even sounds unconstitutional to me

It is, however, a LOCAL ORDINANCE and therefore may not be subject to the constitution's 1st Amendment protections.

I think you may yet realize that the "incorporation" doctrine of the 14th Amendment means that many of the Constitutional rights which were applicable to the Federal Government are JUST as applicable to the States. And that means that the various arms of the states, like localities, are just as bound.

The First Amendment cannot be ignored or violated by the Feds, by any State or by any city, county, town, village or district of any of the States.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

May this man be the one left standing when the dust of this matter finally settles.

God bless him always!!!

Holly

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then he'll go to jail.

No, he will win the court battle, eventually. He already won the battle of public opinion except for the fringe element that always supports the government, even when they say slavery is legal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the law itself is rather silly.

Heck!~ it even sounds unconstitutional to me

It is, however, a LOCAL ORDINANCE and therefore may not be subject to the constitution's 1st Amendment protections.

I suggest you educate yourself on the 14th Amendment.