I’ll back this up. During the actual Bicentennial, there were a crapload of replicas of this flag (and a lame variant where it was the Betsy Ross flag with the same 76 in the middle of the circle of stars) everywhere.
And a version with the stars forming an arch around the 76 instead of a circle.
The flag from the news report is a design called the Bennington Flag, which was flown in the Revolutionary War time at the Battle of Bennington. Notable is the large numeral 76 in the field of stars and the arrangement of the stripes with white being the top stripe.
Perhaps it is true that this particular design pre-dated the United States and thus was never an official flag of the United States but I sure wouldn’t want to argue that if I was the HOA. I doubt a casual observer in the US would think it was evocative of anything other than some permutation of design of the nation’s flag and it would be covered under the broad language of 4 USC § 3
I am sorry, but that’s BS. There are laws that govern the country and the HOA rules don’t get to supersede them. Special snowflake or not he has rights, if you don’t like that move to another country.
Hear, hear. As a former HOA president myself, I concur with this policy platform.
Sure, man, but where do you think this dumb fucking law came from in the first place? A bunch of subliterate dickheads signed leases agreeing not to put certain things in front of their houses, then started whining to their congressmen when they weren’t allowed to put certain things in front of their houses.
Not leases. But purchases of real property with enforceable covenants, yes.
No question other than that nitpick, you’re right.
But what of it? Congress took pity on the plight of the subliterate.
I’m just tired of all this nanny-state Conservativism.
Me, too.
I think this is an unwise action, and something that really shouldn’t even be within Congress’ powers.
HOAs can be very valuable in keeping a neighborhood cleaned up and livable. I have a neighbor who is renting and was running an unofficial used car lot out of his house and then neighboring parking areas.
Calling the police might have done something, but would have required I get involved personally and the dude has some anger issues that I’d rather not get on the bad side of (cops have been called for domestic violence already). So I notified the HOA and they talked to the homeowner who let the renter know that behavior needed to stop.
Plus, they take care of the lawncare of the common areas, sidewalks, etc.
All in all, I’m glad we have an HOA.
The law is on the books, so there you go. Maybe the HOAs can all get together and demand it’s repeal because they hate the American flag so much. lol.
Using the cloak of private agreements to suppress expression is not unique to HOAs. I don’t have it at hand now, but there is done doctrine relating to the shrinking of the public square by replacing it with private property.
Whether people are “illiterate” or otherwise unworthy in your view to have their concerns addressed, I should think it would be a good idea not to recognize as valid certain kinds of covenants, like those preserving the racial exclusivity of a neighborhood – which was also just for concerts about property value, wasn’t it? Same with a pure expression if free speech, like flying a flag.
Well, exactly. HOA contracts aren’t the law of the land, the law is. You can’t just make any contract and expect it to be legal, no matter how dumb you think a law or it’s advocates are.
I think this is a mistake. (I’ll give this one more go and then stop being a broken and boring record.)
You have to start with the fact that the definition in the 2005 Act comes from a prohibition on modifying the flag (4 U.S.C. 3). It makes it a crime to “place any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America.” So quite obviously the statute could not have defined the term “flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America” as anything “evocative of . . . some permutation of design of the nation’s flag”–since the very thing being prohibited is displaying permutations on the design of the flag.
Presumably, the drafters of that statute prohibiting using the flag in designs wanted to avoid people circumventing the statute by using minor variations on the flag. By saying that it covers anything purporting to be the U.S. flag and recognized as such–regardless of the number of stars and bars–McDonald’s cannot slap a golden arch on Old Glory by simply removing a star or two.
Even if you want to read the allowance for differing stars and stripes to (unintentionally?) cover flags that do not even purport to be the U.S. flag but nevertheless resemble it (e.g., the Bennington flag), that allowance does not cover throwing a '76 on there.
Now, instead, you might try to read the language about varying number of stars as penumbrally intending to protect historical flags. But, then, why only protect those historical flags that happen to have stars and bars? And why phrase it so awkwardly and ambiguously if the intent was to protect historical flags? Moreover, the constitutionality of such restrictions on altering the flag (though suspect) rests on the premise that the U.S. government has designated this particular flag (e.g., 4 U.S.C. 1) as the national flag and may protect it. So it would be a bit of a problem to seek to ban the desecration of flags never designated as official by Congress.
I think the far less strained reading is that the definition in 4 U.S.C. 3 refers to stylized versions of the modern U.S. flag, and does not encompass every flag that was ever used by someone to represent the U.S. and that happens to have stars and bars on it.
Wait, what? Of course McDonald’s can put Golden Arches on a U.S. flag. There’s no way that those criminal provisions are enforceable. It’s basically a farce so far as law goes.
I’m just speaking to the text and intent of the relevant statute from which the language is taken, not the constitutionality (except to the extent that the text itself has been shaped and informed by constitutional law).
That said, I don’t think the constitutionality is as open-and-shut as you say.
A lot of you seem to underestimate the amount of work the HOA does. The grass doesn’t cut itself. No handyman magically shows up to repaint the curbs. The streelight doesn’t change its own lightbulb. The sidewalk repair guy doesn’t just come on by every few years and start replacing tiles. The parking lot doesn’t mysteriously get repaved overnight. The tree limbs don’t just know to stop growing when they hang into the street or hit people’s houses.
Who do you think calls the paver and the tree guy and the painter and the landscaper and the accountant and the lawyer? Who do you think gets the bids and cuts the checks?
Seriously, fuck homeowners who think HOAs exist to tell you what decorations to put up. :mad:
Are you sure? The homeowners in my condo association sure seem to think that’s how it happens… 
Oh really? And you say that knowing that flag desecration is protected as free speech, indeed, political speech, the kind if speech that gets the highest level of protection?
We used to leave those matters to something called “the local government” which would use the advantages of buying in bulk for entire towns rather than every little clump of houses bidding out their own little jobs.