Lol. Yes.
That response gives me no confidence in your credibility.
Was it because I didn’t capitalize LOL?
I invite you to address the substantive issue. I’ll let you get on with your Richard Parker-swinging on your own time.
Well, why would it not say that then? If they wanted to make the definition more narrow, they easily should have been able to do that by being more specific. They are choosing to use a definition that rests upon perceptions of what a flag representing America is. Your “less strained” reading is really subverting the criteria for what constitutes a representation of an American flag. By straining it less, you are narrowing what was intended to be a broader, and unfortunately more vague definition of what represents an American flag, and using an alternative standard to determine legitimacy.
I do not see anything mentioned about historical flags in the law. It just does not appear that such a distinction was crucial. I think the law is just meant to protect the display of an american flag as free speech. It is hard to see this historical flag as something other than an equivalent expression of patriotism to displaying a 100% accurate modern American flag. That is what the law is intending to protect, the ability to make that expression without hindrance, there is not really a concern about the historical minutia. Of course, some may have a concern about the historical minutia; but I think that is tangential to the main issue in this case.
It’s important to understand how an HOA works. The board is elected by a vote of the homeowners. My experience is that no one really wants to serve, but does because no one else will. They have no idea what a law book is or, for that matter, where one might be found. They are lead by a property management type individual who, in my experience, spends 2 hours a month (the meetings) blowing smoke up the board members asses in order to convince them that he’s the ultimate authority on all things HOA related. In short, the blind leading the blind. They (the board) fear the “refer it to our attorney” suggestion as they know that bastard will only rip them off for a grand or more.
So, honestly, it would really surprise me if a HOA actually had a clue about any law, let alone a Federal one.
On the other hand, they are really good about keeping the common grounds tidy, the streets swept, and dealing with the occasional miscreant who doesn’t clean up his dog’s droppings.
Sounds similar to a condo my dad lived in; they practically begged him to be on the board, but he had zero interest.
I’ve never heard of a local government that maintained houses of homeowners. For multifamily condo and townhouse constructions, it’s hard to see how one can get around an HOA, just for building maintainance.
Not all HOAs are in neighborhoods that have extensive common areas like that. I live in a neighborhood that has an HOA (at least in theory), but as far as I know it has no responsibilities and owns no property at all.
I’ve never heard of painting curbs, replacing streetlights, or fixing sidewalks as part of home maintenance before.
Yeah, there’s a difference between multi-unit buildings and single-family dwellings, both of which may be under a HOA.
For the condos and townhouses they might be better off collectively hiring a professional management company to maintain the buildings and grounds.
For single family homes - in the old days homeowners were expected to maintain their own properties and the town would take care of roads/street lights/sidewalks/etc.
Then you don’t understand what many HOAs do then. Come on over to my house (you bring the burgers 
).
They painted the trim last month, and they are repairing broken sidewalks this very week (much to my wife’s dislike who works from home)!
Ours is a private neighborhood which means we’re responsible for everything, including paving the roads. When I said as president I don’t do anything, I meant that. Our treasurer, on the other hand, takes care of all kinds of stuff, like landscaping, pool, power, insurance, ensuring dues are paid, etc. Our HOA rarely contacts homeowners over issues, but we definitely serve a purpose.
As someone mentioned earlier, I basically have the position because no one else wants it!
In a nutshell, racism. 
I agree on the condo, but having lived in the city in a rowhouse, I can assure you that townhouses don’t really need an HOA. If I have to cut a tree on my property, I do it. The law in my jurisdiction allows you to cut a tree branch that comes on to your property. We don’t have a parking lot, but you as the homeowner are responsible for maintaining your parking pad. The city maintains the sidewalks. Otherwise, the homeowner is responsible for maintaining his structure.
I’m pretty happy living like that. I can paint my house whatever color I want, and the only restrictions are those imposed by the municipality.
And you say that knowing that Richard Parker-swinging is protected as free speech, indeed, political speech, the kind if speech that gets the highest level of protection?!?!?!? Just kidding. I’ll stop poking you. But next time you might try a little more humility.
Not all flag desecration is protected speech. A tired person might drag a flag through the mud, knowing that this conduct is likely to offend others, and yet have no thought of expressing any idea, and therefore be subject to criminal prosecution according to the Supreme Court. Or a man might wear a United States flag as a poncho without any purpose of symbolic expression, according to the Iowa Supreme Court, upholding their version of the statute.
More importantly, as noted in footnote 10 of Texas v. Johnson (the case striking down the flag desecration statutes), commercial speech is often treated differently from political speech in the First Amendment context. This reservation was made express by United States v. Eichman in the next Supreme Court term, in which Justice Brennan noted that “We deal here with concededly political speech and have no occasion to pass on the validity of laws regulating commercial exploitation of the image of the United States flag.”
Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that a “provision against the use of representations of the flag for advertising articles of merchandise is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34, 45-46 (1907). That was too long ago to matter for various reasons, but given the nod to that case in the modern flag cases, it is the starting point for any analysis nevertheless. That means McDonald’s using an altered version of the flag in branding may or may not be constitutionally protected speech according to the Supreme Court.
You’ll note that the post that got your feathers so ruffled was not saying there aren’t arguments for why commercial speech should be as protected as political speech, it was just saying that it is not open-and-shut. And that’s true. I suspect McDonald’s would deny that their superimposing the Golden Arches on the flag was purely commercial speech, and that they intended a political message–true or not, that would probably save their bacon. But, again, not open-and-shut.
The Mooore Youuu Knoooooooow.
Hell, most of them can’t figure out the basics of Robert’s Rules of Order let alone how to interpret the law.
Thank you for your reply. And what hot me ruffled was the “lol,” for the record.
There is room for wiggle in your citations, but I think that’s all theoretical. As a matter of practicality I don’t think there’s any practical room for flag protection, the same way that only child porn and other extreme stuff is the only kind of porn that will ever be found obscene.
Given that the flag has never been solely restricted to identify government actors and buildings, for example, I don’t think anyone can make a straight-faced argument that the government has any valid interest in preventing desecration of the flag, in the same way that the government can’t force people to take the pledge if allegiance.
When commercial speech is legitimately regulated, there is done stronger purpose, often public health and safety. There’s no important purpose regarding flags that’s applicable here.
HOAs perform quasi-governmental actions and ought to be* subject to regulation under Congress’ 14th Amendment powers. I don’t think it can otherwise reach this conduct because the reach of any HOA is by definition solely local and Congress has to make express findings to regulate noncommercial intrastate activity under the ICC. There are no such findings in the Act (though it reads as though this was a longstanding problem) and nothing in the Act suggests that Conngress though it was exercising its commerce power.
I don’t really see how Ascenray’s argument works otherwise. Yes, dude has a right to fly his flag- but he can validly contract away that right. Deeming this restriction void as a matter of public policy doesn’t make sense; we need the First Amendment- and for that to apply, we need state action.
Of course, if a court enforces the covenant (allows the HOA to foreclose when the guy doesn’t pay his fines?) we’ll have state action (just like in Shelley v. Kraemer).
*they’re not, because the functions performed by HOAs are not exclusive government functions.
I’m pretty sure the Cossack Hosts had an utter devotion to the idea of ‘Individual Freedom’ many centuries before the Americas were discovered; see also Teutonic tribes slaughtering Varus’s Legions, Italian City States, and the astoundingly boring works of John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Mr. Locke being worshipfully regarded by those brave fighters for liberty, the slave-owners of the Old South. Who themselves believed in individual freedom to own other people.
And in other countries legal discussions on freedom do not degenerate into differing claims of what a constitution permits those subject to it.