Aren't the stars on the wrong side? Shouldn't the stars be on her right breast to match the American flag?
Yes, but you could chalk it up to artistic liberties. The flag isn't supposed to be worn in clothing anyways, but ever since the SCOTUS made the stupid decision to allow flag burning, the US Flag Code hasn't been followed since the SCOTUS themselves violated the law. Any expression of the flag is patriotic now since there are a lot of people who want to hide it out of disrespect.
Yes, but you could chalk it up to artistic liberties. The flag isn't supposed to be worn in clothing anyways, but ever since the SCOTUS made the stupid decision to allow flag burning, the US Flag Code hasn't been followed since the SCOTUS themselves violated the law. Any expression of the flag is patriotic now since there are a lot of people who want to hide it out of disrespect.
Without getting into shit-flinging, I can see the logic of allowing flag burning as an expression of liberty and freedom of speech. There is, still, to my knowledge a lot of rules that are effectively unenforceable that prohibit the wearing of actual flags as clothing, but to my knowledge having a flag-patterned article on you is permissible even if it is a bikini.
When I looked it up, I believe the the US flag code specified not to use actual flags as clothing or else not to make clothing out of flags, and doesn't apply to flag-patterned stuff. That being said, the flag code is kind of loosely enforced anyway.
Without getting into shit-flinging, I can see the logic of allowing flag burning as an expression of liberty and freedom of speech. There is, still, to my knowledge a lot of rules that are effectively unenforceable that prohibit the wearing of actual flags as clothing, but to my knowledge having a flag-patterned article on you is permissible even if it is a bikini.
Freedom of speech though is not disrespecting your country. Burning the flag is an act of treason, as an American you can push to change the country but disrespecting the flag is an insult to America itself that offers no expression of thought or argument beyond hatred of the country. One of the best quotes I have heard on the subject is that if you want to make a statement about the flag, wash it.
By the US Flag Code we are not supposed to have a flag patterned article of clothing on you at all unless you are an active service-member of the military, LE, firefighter and one other I believe. It isn't enforceable right now, but that is only because the SCOTUS violated the federal law to begin with.
DreamFromTheLayer said:
When I looked it up, I believe the the US flag code specified not to use actual flags as clothing or else not to make clothing out of flags, and doesn't apply to flag-patterned stuff. That being said, the flag code is kind of loosely enforced anyway.
It says parts of flags, which includes the patterns. For example if one wanted to deliberately defy the intent of the law, they could just use a flag and cut it for their clothing and say it no longer is usable as a "flag". However the original law is written with the understanding of what the US flag is, not just a flag itself. For example the flag legally has other forms other than a flag, such as a patch for identification, or a painting on a vehicle for similar purposes. Other parts of the flag code that imply this reasoning are the prohibitions from using the US flag as advertisement.
Technically you are allowed to burn the US flag, especially if it is an old or badly damaged flag. There is a proper procedure to it where, in short, the stripes are cut off one by one and finally the blue corner with all the stars is thrown into the fire last.
Technically you are allowed to burn the US flag, especially if it is an old or badly damaged flag. There is a proper procedure to it where, in short, the stripes are cut off one by one and finally the blue corner with all the stars is thrown into the fire last.
Correct, but it is retiring the flag, not burning in protest. Like you said, retirement is a respectful burning of a flag that is too worn for service.
It most certainly is not. Read the Constitution before you spout off about what does and doesn't constitute treason. Article III, Section 3, to be specific.
It most certainly is not. read the Constitution before you spout off about what does and doesn't constitute treason. Article III, Section 3, to be specific.
We aren't talking about the crime of treason, we are talking about treason as an act. The Constitution lists the method for the state to declare treason, but one can betray a country without the recognition of the government. Sorry, but when we caught traitors in the act of aiding terrorists or other enemies of the US we didn't sit around and wait for Congress to legally determine them to be traitors, we shot them on the spot if they didn't have a use just like any other enemy personnel unless they immediately surrendered. When you burn the flag you are not expressing any opinion except the destruction of the country. That is treasonous, and again, retirement is a completely different process than just burning the flag. No, you aren't going to shoot people who burn the flags in country, since it isn't a warzone and there isn't lives at stake, but no one in their right mind can claim such an action is anything but treasonous.
Like I said, the SCOTUS ruled in violation of the law, which is why the US flag code has not been followed since. Courts in general in recent times have "legalized" a wide variety of crimes, which is why things like recreational marijuana use, illegal aliens, and gun control have been tolerated, despite objectively being against the law as written. Wither you agree or disagree with the ruling is one thing, but you cannot objectively say that such rulings are following the rule of law as written.
We aren't talking about the crime of treason, we are talking about treason as an act. The Constitution lists the method for the state to declare treason, but one can betray a country without the recognition of the government. Sorry, but when we caught traitors in the act of aiding terrorists or other enemies of the US we didn't sit around and wait for Congress to legally determine them to be traitors, we shot them on the spot if they didn't have a use just like any other enemy personnel unless they immediately surrendered. When you burn the flag you are not expressing any opinion except the destruction of the country. That is treasonous, and again, retirement is a completely different process than just burning the flag. No, you aren't going to shoot people who burn the flags in country, since it isn't a warzone and there isn't lives at stake, but no one in their right mind can claim such an action is anything but treasonous.
Like I said, the SCOTUS ruled in violation of the law, which is why the US flag code has not been followed since. Courts in general in recent times have "legalized" a wide variety of crimes, which is why things like recreational marijuana use, illegal aliens, and gun control have been tolerated, despite objectively being against the law as written. Wither you agree or disagree with the ruling is one thing, but you cannot objectively say that such rulings are following the rule of law as written.
Okay completly disregarding the part about flags.
... Are you trying to state that once a law is written it should be unmutatable and unremovable?
... Are you trying to state that once a law is written it should be unmutatable and unremovable?
If you wish to change a law you do so by the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. Judges are not supposed to pick and choose which laws or part of it they want people to follow, their only role is to clarify and apply the law, not to contradict it. This is a very constrained set of powers because the Judicial branch like the Executive branch has the potential to very quickly become that of a dictatorship if abused.
That said, there are absolutely some laws that are immutable. The Bill of Rights for example. Altering those would destroy what makes America what it is, as no federal authority has any legal power that can infringe on those supreme laws.
