She's Lost Her Mind

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Camp

Because there is a duty to represent the voters and uphold the standard of office.

Well, that’s exactly what she’s doing - representing the people who voted for her.

@Camp

That does not include altering the flag you swear allegiance to as an elected official.

Again - why not?

I don’t get flag fetishism.

Well, it’s her fetish. Surely even she knows that adding a star to the flag doesn’t make DC a State.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Well, it’s her fetish.

No, it isn’t.

[Samm]

@Orygun

Shoot theres 30 cities with more population in Wyoming- including DC.

California has about 70 times the population of Wyoming.

Texas has 50 times the population of Wyoming.

Some serious strangeness. I can only hope that the progressive youngsters decide to move into the more spacious and cheaper red states as they get older.

Statehood is not about the number of people, it’s about their ability to govern themselves independently from the Federal Government and other States. Washington DC has no industry (other than government), they have no resources, they produce nothing, they have no independent means of support. They do not meet the basic requirements to be a State.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Camp

Right.

The flag does.

No, the flag doesn’t speak for anyone. In fact, it does not speak at all.

It is, after all, an inanimate object.

Title 4 and Title 36 of U.S. Code says otherwise.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Camp

It is an official symbol.

It has meaning.

Is this an “official symbol?”

Why do you persist with that stupidity?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Why do you persist with that stupidity?

Because you guys can’t explain the difference, and I’m trying to understand.

What makes Bowser’s banners on the street different from the “thin blue line” flag?

Why does one outrage you, but not the other?

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Camp

Looks like Checkers the dog of the flag world.

I like the blue lives message.

I would not want it to replace the official flag in my local court room.

Who said anything about “replacing” the official flag?

The Mayor of DC. She ordered “her flag” to be flown instead of the National flag.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

The Mayor of DC. She ordered “her flag” to be flown instead of the National flag.

No, she didn’t.

She hung up flags on Pennsylvania Ave with 51 stars. She didn’t replace anything.

[Samm]

@Zander

@Samm

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

No they don’t.

Ahem…

Those flags are not representations of the National Flag. They fall under the description of political banner. What the Mayor is doing is defacing the flag and flying it as the flag. You may not see the difference, but it is substantially different.

Laugh. Out. Loud.

NOBODY attempted to replace the National flag with those flags. They were used only as political banners.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

And there lies the problem … your opinion is as far off base as her auctions and just as stupid.

It’s not my opinion that 18 U.S.C. 700 was overturned by the Supreme Court. That is a very well recorded piece of history.

I don’t know why you’re having such a hard time with this.

That’s because you are wrong. They did not declare the law unconstitutional, they said the government cannot punish an individual for violating the code. The law remains on the books and the Mayor took an Oath to uphold that law.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Well, it’s her fetish.

No, it isn’t.

It was your word.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Why do you persist with that stupidity?

Because you guys can’t explain the difference, and I’m trying to understand.

What makes Bowser’s banners on the street different from the “thin blue line” flag?

Why does one outrage you, but not the other?

Bull ■■■■■ You’re not trying to understand at all.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

The Mayor of DC. She ordered “her flag” to be flown instead of the National flag.

No, she didn’t.

She hung up flags on Pennsylvania Ave with 51 stars. She didn’t replace anything.

By her orders …

[DougBH]

From Virginia and Maryland they came and to Virginia and Maryland they return if they cease to be a unique district. In fact, DC was once larger and was returned in part to Virginia so there is even precedence.
What if Maryland doesn’t want what used to be theirs? Too bad. I’m not so sure I appreciate Austin being part of Texas.
Why wouldn’t this resolution resolve the issue? Everybody knows this is not about rights, it’s about two free permanent Democrat Senators.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

That’s because you are wrong. They did not declare the law unconstitutional, they said the government cannot punish an individual for violating the code. The law remains on the books and the Mayor took an Oath to uphold that law.

They absolutely did.

You should read the opinion. This part is my favorite:

We are aware that desecration of the flag is deeply offensive to many. But the same might be said, for example, of virulent ethnic and religious epithets, see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949), vulgar repudiations of the draft, see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), and scurrilous caricatures, see Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988). “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Johnson, supra, at 414, 109 S.Ct., at 2545. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.

UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Shawn D. EICHMAN, David Gerald Blalock and Scott...

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

It was your word.

…to describe your outrage.

@Samm

Bull ■■■■■ You’re not trying to understand at all.

I really am. I honestly don’t get it, and never have.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

That’s because you are wrong. They did not declare the law unconstitutional, they said the government cannot punish an individual for violating the code. The law remains on the books and the Mayor took an Oath to uphold that law.

They absolutely did.

You should read the opinion. This part is my favorite:

We are aware that desecration of the flag is deeply offensive to many. But the same might be said, for example, of virulent ethnic and religious epithets, see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949), vulgar repudiations of the draft, see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), and scurrilous caricatures, see Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988). “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Johnson, supra, at 414, 109 S.Ct., at 2545. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.

UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Shawn D. EICHMAN, David Gerald Blalock and Scott W. Tyler. UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Mark John HAGGERTY, Carlos Garza, Jennifer Proctor Campbell and Darius Allen Strong. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Yep … Can’t punish someone for expressing their opinion. It does not make the code unconstitutional. The Mayor pledged to uphold the code. The First Amendment does not apply.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

It was your word.

…to describe your outrage.

@Samm

Bull ■■■■■ You’re not trying to understand at all.

I really am. I honestly don’t get it, and never have.

Then you should quit trying.

[Zander]

It makes the code unconstitutional.

The first amendment is the first thing that applies. It’s the first question asked, and the only question asked.

Just because you’re confused about how scotus decisions work, and their impact on extant statutes, does not make that any less true. It just means we have to talk twice as slow about this, apparently.

[Samm]

@Zander

It makes the code unconstitutional.

The first amendment is the first thing that applies. It’s the first question asked, and the only question asked.

Just because you’re confused about how scotus decisions work, and their impact on extant statutes, does not make that any less true. It just means we have to talk twice as slow about this, apparently.

No, it does not and I am not confused about anything. The code stands, they just can’t punish anyone for violating it. But … again … the Mayor took an oath to uphold Federal Law, which includes that specific code. She violated her oath … she can be pushed for that.