Point 1 on supporting constitution. Surely it has relevant sections about flag and anthem respect?
it doesnt
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
it doesnt
Can you quote them?
My mistake. It part of US Code not the constitution. It would still fall under point 4 on obeying laws. I expect most countries to have similar laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301
That isn’t a law.
If standing for the Anthem is the mark of the 'jackboot' state, how about the obligation to hand over half your income to a community that hasn't earned it, or risk your life in its defense? Surely only the most monstrous of Nazi regimes would demand such proof of allegiance?
I'm not an expert here, but a brief google indicates "The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.".
Wiki says: "The Code of Laws of the United States of America(variously abbreviated to Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, U.S. Code, U.S.C., or USC) "
I think that fealty freely given in a country that professes itself free is worth infinitely more than a fealty which is extorted. You're perfectly within your rights to criticise the protests and believe that it is disrespectful, I just think that requiring compliance goes against the very values the flag stands for. Certainly I think the problem with allowing the anthem and flag to permeate civilian life to the extent it seems to in the states is that if you are also willing to extort total compliance the flag ceases to be just a symbol, it becomes a weapon.
no one who isnt googling desperately to support their point in an internet argument has ever heard of the us code
Determining those who 'shouldn't belong' was the giveaway Will.
Send them back, right?
Here is the important bit: "individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;"
Should is a suggestion but not a command like shall would make it and as such it would not violate the law by not abiding by the suggested behaviour during the anthem.
Should is a suggestion but not a command like shall would make it and as such it would not violate the law by not abiding by the suggested behaviour during the anthem.
That's where I am at. I believe it's disrespectful to not stand and mouth the words of your anthem. I totally agree there is no logic to that belief. That's just my belief.
At the same time everybody has a right to not stand or not sing along.
BTW isn't it more disrespectful when people wear underwear with the flag design? Always thought so.
In the so called land of the free they try and force people to stand to the anthem.
I'd love to just bring this back to reality for two minutes and point out two things:
1. As many people have said, this military element to the NFL is only since 2009. This is not some immutable, in stone, tradition as old as time thing.
2. Fecking Trump insults the anthem every time he mumbles his way through it! The president, who bleats constantly about respecting the flag and anthem, doesn't actually know it. He STILL hasn't taken the time to learn it.
Point 2 should render this entire discussion moot since it's only begun due to that same Trump's bleating.
1. As many people have said, this military element to the NFL is only since 2009. This is not some immutable, in stone, tradition as old as time thing.
2. Fecking Trump insults the anthem every time he mumbles his way through it! The president, who bleats constantly about respecting the flag and anthem, doesn't actually know it. He STILL hasn't taken the time to learn it.
Point 2 should render this entire discussion moot since it's only begun due to that same Trump's bleating.
If you are expecting a 'free' society with absolutely no rules, you're chasing a mirage. These are democratic rules that can be changed any time. But till such a change is made, it's up everyone to follow them. You can't pick and choose which laws to obey and which not to. If you are against it, go ahead and get it changed...but ignoring set laws and just going by your own opinions will just be anarchy.
The UCMJ may not be so kind.
The state can't make them stand for the flag because the laws that undergird the flag and anthem allow it to be a choice.
On the other hand, since the NFL players work for private corporations, the owners can make a policy whereby the players are obliged to stand, and those who choose not to, can be sanctioned (typically by way of fines).
I was waiting for this. Someone always bring up the semantics nonsense. It's quite obvious from the context on what is expected. Someone kneels and people bring out their thesaurus and look for technicalities.
Ah, the ignorance of the law argument. Good luck with that.
She’s been on every station for a few days now. She tries to thread the needle on her answers, trying not to upset Apricot Amin, but not completely denouncing Mueller. The end result of every interview is it’s just blather.
you literally just admitted that you looked it up on wikipedia
Totally.
No, there's no 'back' to go back to. But America does require new citizens to pledge allegiance to the flag as a symbol of the Nation itself; is it really asking too much of existing citizens to reaffirm their own allegiance when the occasion arises, or at least not actively repudiate it?
When it comes to law the wording are essential as different words changes the meaning. If you care to look into this further you would find that the courts agree with my "semantics" regarding this law and the interpretation of it. Not all laws are absolute but also merely guiding or suggestive.
Here is a easy to read link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...inst-law-nfl-players-kneel-national-anthem-r/
Ofc.
Well, now that you know the law...do you think it makes for a fundamentals of being a citizen?
Tagline-worthy, mods.
What the players are doing covers the first, second, fifth, and sixth bulletpoints, basically negating your ‘citizenry’ argument.
Although has it been discussed how that plays out if the venue the players perform on is considered public or a private entity's hold?
Not all owners own their arenas/stadiums. Not sure how many outright own their venues but I presume most are municipally owned.
Where does the “respect the rights, beliefs and opinions of others” come into play in this then? Surely that works both ways.
They're still employed by the corporations owned by the owners. Its like working for any private company. You have to abide by the company's rules.
Why should they, at a sporting event no less? Allegiance should be a free commitment, not forced. If someone feels injustice in their own society then surely they have a right to voice their objections?
Yawn....
no. because no one I know has ever heard of it and most of us are citizens.
Very easy narrative, almost comical. Exactly what his voters want to hear from him.
Trump puts his bottle on the floor so Pence follows suit.
And more to the point, does anyone here have the slightest faith that Trump has ever heard of it?
That's fine, but very legalistic. My point is a little broader. It may appear nebulous, but America has successfully integrated immigrants from all over the globe for two hundred years by embracing an aggressive form of sentimental nationalism. Were they really so misguided when they placed so much emphasis on public expressions of patriotism as a means of welding their embryonic and patchwork society together?
Be a shame if something tragic befell that man, like a strange accident that saw his vehicle plummet a few hundred feet down a cliff.
So you think in your free country that people should perhaps be cast aside for not standing for the symbol of freedom?
- Status