COL Barfoot -Threads Merged

[Longrifle]

Originally Posted by AJG

I think a good lawyer will tell this homeowner this and advise him as to how to go about displaying his flag within the rules.

And I think a better lawyer would consider the possibility that this "rule" is wrong in denying a property owner a commonly accepted way of displaying the flag, and would offer his services.

Suppose a HOA had a rule prohibiting invitation of certain minorities to sit on one's lawn. Clearly that wouldn't be an acceptable rule, so why is this one?

At one time "covenants" were enforced, too, until someone stepped up to the plate with a lawyer and got that changed.

I simply do not believe anyone, for any reason, should have the right to tell a property owner how they can display the US flag respectfully on their own land. Paying property taxes alone should provide that guarantee.

[AJG]

Originally Posted by Longrifle

And I think a better lawyer would consider the possibility that this "rule" is wrong in denying a property owner a commonly accepted way of displaying the flag, and would offer his services.

Fine, think what you want. Suffice to say, this issue has long been resolved by the courts in pretty near every case and it's my general rule not to take a client's money for litigating an issue where the long settled law is against him.

Originally Posted by Longrifle

Suppose a HOA had a rule prohibiting invitation of certain minorities to sit on one's lawn. Clearly that wouldn't be an acceptable rule, so why is this one?

Because that law would be violating federal laws and probably state laws also, depending on what state you are in.

Originally Posted by Longrifle

At one time "covenants" were enforced, too, until someone stepped up to the plate with a lawyer and got that changed.

A covenant is a restriction in a deed which in some way limits what can be done with the land by future owners. They are still enforced regularly unless they violate some law.

Originally Posted by Longrifle

I simply do not believe anyone, for any reason, should have the right to tell a property owner how they can display the US flag respectfully on their own land. Paying property taxes alone should provide that guarantee.

As a matter of principle, I agree. As a matter of law, it really doesn't matter what you or I believe, the law is to the contrary absent a statute such as the one someone here posted from Florida.

Frankly, I'm not sure the Florida statute would withstand a constitutional challenge under Article I, Section 10, which provides that "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. But that's just a quick thought off the top of my head, which I admit to not having researched.

[Longrifle]

Originally Posted by AJG

Because that law would be violating federal laws and probably state laws also, depending on what state you are in.

Exactly my point. It's time for a law to protect one's right to fly the US flag on his/her own property.

A covenant is a restriction in a deed which in some way limits what can be done with the land by future owners. They are still enforced regularly unless they violate some law.

My fault for being vague. I was referring to covenants preventing future sale of a home to non-whites.

As a matter of principle, I agree. As a matter of law, it really doesn't matter what you or I believe, the law is to the contrary absent a statute such as the one someone here posted from Florida.

We keep beating around the bush. I think we need a law to allow a property owner to fly the US flag. If he can hang one he ought to be able to fly one, and a HOA can butt out when it comes to the US flag. If they want to restrict any other flag that's another matter for another thread, law, contract, argument, or discussion.

Frankly, I'm not sure the Florida statute would withstand a constitutional challenge under Article I, Section 10, which provides that "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. But that's just a quick thought off the top of my head, which I admit to not having researched.

I believe you. Thus the need for a federal law in this matter.

Originally Posted by mdb23

The simple answer is that the prohibition against minorities in the community would violate federal discrimination laws, a prohibition against flagpoles does not.

And the simple solution, since common sense is lacking in certain HOAs, is a federal law allowing a property owner to display the US flag on a flagpole.

Just as there is a clear need for laws to prevent racial discrimination in contracts, there obviously is a need for a law to prevent this kind of crap in contracts.

Originally Posted by AJG

Because that law would be violating federal laws and probably state laws also, depending on what state you are in.

If a lawyer could demonstrate that this rule is violating a federal law or a basic principle on which the United States is founded, would that not constitute a similar circumstance?

A number of people have stated that he is allowed to display a flag, just not on a flagpole.

However, by denying him his flagpole, isn't the HOA denying him the ability to raise and lower the flag in a manner consistent with military protocal and pay respects to that flag in a manner which is indicative of his status as a recipient of the Medal of Honor?

Frankly, I'm not sure the Florida statute would withstand a constitutional challenge under Article I, Section 10, which provides that "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. But that's just a quick thought off the top of my head, which I admit to not having researched.

I believe that argument was used pre-civil war to enforce the pursuit of slaves. I'm not sure I'd want to make an argument that called on that as precedence.

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Longrifle

Suppose a HOA had a rule prohibiting invitation of certain minorities to sit on one's lawn. Clearly that wouldn't be an acceptable rule, so why is this one?

The simple answer is that the prohibition against minorities in the community would violate federal discrimination laws, a prohibition against flagpoles does not.

[MakoZeroSix]

Read the good Colonel's story again. Its not about the flagpole, its about the fight! Its about his ability to stay alive and fight for what he thinks is right. I would hate to say that he would probably get sick or worse if he were to win this case and then have nothing to fight for.

NOTE: This is the opinion of someone who never has and never will live under the fascist rule of a home owners association, which is really just a collection of uppity sheep that desperately wish they were born as sheep dogs or wolves. This is their next best thing for them, controlling lesser sheep.

Hey, whoa, bro...Wouldn't Dale Carnegie opt to appease the homeowners association, in an attempt to win their friendship and influence them?