Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ ruling that American Flag may be used as toilet paper

  1. #1

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ ruling that American Flag may be used as toilet paper




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    "I consider them (American flags and yellow ribbons) to be symbols, and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded". -George Carlin
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  4. #3
    Great victory for freedom...

  5. #4
    Most are kinda silky not sure that would work all that great...I need something with a little texture to it

  6. #5

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley View Post
    Another inane reply.
    Can you give us an example of a reply you would like to see?
    I am the spoon.

  8. #7
    I would say that:

    1-People have the right to be fools.
    2-This is impossible to enforce.
    3-It is an emotionally driven law, as opposed to reasoned.

  9. #8
    why are courts wasting tax $ on stupid $#@! like this ?
    You are the Universe experiencing itself



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

    The major misconception in the comments here

    All the misconceptions in the comments about the supposed “freedom to burn flags” stem from one great misunderstanding about the 1st Amendment (and the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights): Despite what the Supreme Court has said in the so-called incorporation cases, in our federal system, the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to state laws, such as the Texas flag desecration statue in Texas v. Johnson. The Bill of Rights is a limitation only on the federal government and does not permit federal interference with state criminal or civil legislation.

    Put another way, the federal government and the supreme court has no power to set aside state laws which actually conflict or seem to conflict with the Bill of Rights. And for the federal government to interfere with those laws violates the 10th Amendment reservation of state powers.

    And matters such as flag burning turn on state constitutional law.

    For a full discussion on the matter, please go to The 14th Amendment “Incorporation Cases” Violate the 10th and are Unconstitutional @ http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com...onstitutional/.

    In short, libertarians ought be constitutionalists and not political theorists. And they ought to recognize the supremacy of the Constitution itself, even when it pinches.

  12. #10
    Doing things to pieces of cloth should not be crimes.

    Edit: Your blog mentions a case where people were stealing and destroying someone else's piece of cloth.

    The fact that the cloth belonged to someone else is the only reason a crime was committed -- how the cloth looked should not matter.
    Last edited by Yieu; 03-31-2012 at 08:04 AM.

  13. #11
    Yieu: Perhaps not, but the federal government has no power to decriminalize state criminal statutes.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley View Post
    Yieu: Perhaps not, but the federal government has no power to decriminalize state criminal statutes.
    So long as those statues don't violate the Constitution/Bill of Rights, you're correct, from a legal and Constitutional perspective.

    I was just stating what I consider to be more ideal: the State not having that law.

    Edit: I think property law should have handled that case just fine, and they would have had a stronger case.

    Destruction of property is a crime, and I consider that aspect of the case worse than flag desecration.

    The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the "freedom of expression" to destroy other people's property or flags.
    Last edited by Yieu; 03-31-2012 at 09:11 AM.

  15. #13
    Yieu: "So long as those statues don't violate the Constitution/Bill of Rights, you're correct, from a legal and Constitutional perspective."

    No. Those statutes can "violate" the federal Bill of Rights, because the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government. The question is whether the statute violates the state constitution.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglass Bartley View Post
    Yieu: "So long as those statues don't violate the Constitution/Bill of Rights, you're correct, from a legal and Constitutional perspective."

    No. Those statutes can "violate" the federal Bill of Rights, because the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government. The question is whether the statute violates the state constitution.
    The Bill of Rights would be meaningless if the States could ignore them. That would just be a backdoor way to violate your rights.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Yieu View Post
    The Bill of Rights would be meaningless if the States could ignore them. That would just be a backdoor way to violate your rights.
    That's very true. But the way the Bill of Rights was written it does not bar the States from doing anything at least when it states that Congress shall make no law.

    Quote Originally Posted by First Amendment
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    The other amendments do not mention the states, but merely state the rights of the people, such as to bear arms.

    I wonder why it was written like that? Why would the First Amendment mention only congress, but the rest simply state the rights of the people?
    Last edited by eduardo89; 03-31-2012 at 01:00 PM.

  18. #16
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    On the incorporation question, many answers are given @ The 14th Amendment “Incorporation Cases” Violate the 10th and are Unconstitutional @ http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com...onstitutional/. See there especially Barron v. Baltimore (1833), where Marshall held that the Bill of Rights was not applicable to the states.

    The 14th amendment did require that states treat its citizens (black and white) equally in state legislation, in state bills of rights, in state judicial proceedings, and in the state's enforcement of law. And it gave Congress power to enact legislation to implement it; and the federal courts power to hear cases where state action resulted in discrimination in any of those things.

    But 14th didn't change the fundamental relationship between federal and state government, as it is often wrongly assumed.
    Last edited by Douglass Bartley; 03-31-2012 at 01:44 PM.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 161
    Last Post: 01-28-2022, 05:43 PM
  2. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Overturns Woollard Ruling MSI Update
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2013, 08:18 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-15-2013, 09:53 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2012, 12:07 PM
  5. Fox Asks Appeals Court To Stand By Ruling
    By hillbilly123069 in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-20-2009, 12:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •