The United States was a grand experiment and like all human endeavors, it did some things right and some things wrong. As an American, I tend to focus on what we did right and paint in my mind a tradition of positive evolution from the Founding Fathers to the present (with just missteps from time to time).
I consider myself patriotic. The last time I pledged allegiance to the “flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands” was this past July 6 and I expect to pledge at least once more this month. When I make that pledge, my allegiance is directed to the goal of making the United States a “more perfect union.”1
I admit that I typically don’t make a big deal of patriotic images and I don’t wear my patriotism on my sleeve (or my lapel). I have a flag on display in my study, as shown in the photo above and my father’s burial flag is also in a place of honor. 
There is also a flag on the right sidebar of this blog.4 That flag is on the blog for the same reason that this article is being written, to assert that it is my flag, and that the American flag is not is owned by any faction, particularly the extreme right wing, who like to paint themselves as the only true patriots, and to wrap 
themselves in the flag. I don’t suppose Lord Monckton1 would consider himself an American patriot, but even he plays dress-up with the American flag. Orly Taitz3 is perhaps more tastefully dressed for an anti-immigrant protest at Murrieta, California, this past July 4, but Taitz is not exactly following American founding tradition. The United States, as originally envisioned by our Founders, did not have an illegal immigration problem. In fact it was not 1875 that the United States even had an immigration law. Up until that time, anybody could come without restriction. After that time prostitutes and convicts were no longer welcome. Soon to follow were restrictions on the Chinese.
From the start, America had it’s share of conspiracy theorists, anti-government activists, and political dirty tricksters5, so I can hardly say that the birthers and others I oppose are unentitled to their own piece of that American tradition. I just want the country to move in a nobler6 and more enlightened direction than they do. My own desire is that we find liberty and justice for all, and not just for some.
1Preamble to the United States Constitution.
2Monkton interview following address to Tea Party meeting in Phoenix, Arizona in 2012.
3This photo is cropped from a series of photos that originally appeared at the Taitz web site, but were subsequently deleted.
4While I really like the flag image on the blog, I am looking to replace it with some photo I took myself.
5See, for example, The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory.
6Part of the Civitan Creed (I’m a member) states:
MY PLEDGE: to practice the Golden Rule and to build upon it a better and nobler citizenship.
What Taitz forgets is that there was a time, not so long ago, that her co-religionists were regarded as undesirable and not admitted to the United States.
Well said, Doc.
Borat was wearing that American flag shirt in the rodeo scene when he said:
“My name is Borat, I come from Kazakhstan. Can I say first . . . we support your war of terror!”
People have long regarded Monckton as a fool. And with the British Government now removing people with inherited titles from the House of Lords, he has even less to occupy him.
In a similar vein: it really, really annoys me that the Gadsden flag has been co-opted and besmirched, seemingly for all time.
You can buy a Gadsden flag t-shirt that features a goofy-faced snake and the caption “Don’t Laugh at Me” if you ever feel like besmirching the besmirchers.
Between July 4,1776 and January 1,1808 (per Article One, Section 8) “the Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
Sub-Saharan Africans could come to the United States only as persons bound to chattel slavery, not as naturalized citizens. Citizenship came in 1868.
The German flag of today – black-red-gold – is not tainted by German history. It was the flag of the revolutionaries of 1848 (Carl Schurz!) and the Republic of Weimar.
I accept that many Germans and their supporters will fly black-red-gold tonight, when Germany beats Brazil in the soccer semifinals (or not).
Still I like flags only on ships – where they are necessary.
/offtopic 1
Some 20 years ago I passed – with a sailing vessel of about 50 feet – in the bay of Toulon a french warship at very close distance. Just for fun I took down my German flag, the traditional way of greeting a foreign warship.
A few seconds later a door under the bridge opened and a matelot hurried (a long way) to the flagmast, took down the Tricolore, waited a few seconds and hoisted her again. I hoisted the German ensign after that. Perfect seamanship on both sides. And a lot of fun for everyone – except that poor matelot.
/offtopic 2
If the Netherlands make it into the finals, I may tell you guys the amazing story why they are dressed in orange.
I’ve never really liked the Irish flag. Its pretty bland to be honest. The original symbolism was supposed to be the Catholics and Protestants united, but that hasn’t really been true in the North of Ireland for 200 years. Too much religion and not enough Christianity. In the south your religion is very much a non factor.
The original Irish Flag was a Gold harp on a green background, the Harp of the Bard Carolan against the Green of Ireland, and I find that a much more attractive flag, personally.
Apropos the flag, anti-immigration protests at Murrieta, and extreme views, Lawrence O’Donnell last night featured some footage filmed by Alexandra Pelosi in Murrieta this July 4th weekend.
Here is my transcription of a brief excerpt featuring Craig, a protestor sporting a long, scraggly white beard, holding a ripped flag of some kind of synthetic material being whipped by the wind, and wearing a stylized flag bandana. I find Craig’s comments quite telling and revealing of this kind of person’s cognitive dissonance and avoidance of owning their own ignoble feelings by projecting them onto others.
*****
Craig: “I don’t have a big fear of these kids here, coming here. I fear more of the Muslims and the Chinese. I–”
Alexandra Pelosi: “What?! You’re going crazy town on me. I thought we were talking about the kids coming here.”
Craig: “Well, I thought we were talking about the immigrants coming here.”
[cut briefly, with white noise of background voices, to another protestor’s sign:
Obama let them play with your kids!]
Craig (cont’d): “He’s [Obama’s] doing everything he can to destroy our country. I see this as a little piece of his, his–”
Alexandra Pelosi: “I got it. You just hate Obama. I got it.”
Craig: “Yeah, that too. Yeah. He’s anti-American, he’s anti-Christian, he’s anti-white. I have problems with all of the above.”
Monckton has never been a member of the House of Lords and Parliament has reminded him of it in official letters – twice.
Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he’s not member of House of Lords
Holy crap!
i would have told craig: “oh really? well, those kids on that bus don’t see that. they just see some angry old nutjob waving rags and screaming at them …”
I guess not everyone here understands already ….
It’s my flag too!
—–
What Taitz forgets; I could write a book… There is something not right about her, and I am not just talking about the crazy/incompetent stuff that is so obvious.
My family came here in the early 20th century–some as teenagers on their own with $30 (I’ve seen some of their Ellis Island records). If they hadn’t come here, we all would have perished. In the 40s the U.S. turned ships back to Germany…. If I was alive then, I would have aided anyone who could have gotten them off those ships, illegally. When I today see people coming to the U.S., I see my grandparents…. I am glad to see them. I wish them well.
Orly is so out-of-bounds wrong. And as an immigrant herself, she has no excuse. How dare she immigrate and then spend her life trying to keep others from doing the same. There really is something not kosher about her.
Pulling up the ladder behind you has become the American Way. That wasn’t always the case, and it’s one reason America is no longer Great.
—–
Frankly, I think America is still as great as it ever was. I think we tend to romanticize the past, and then get especially disappointed with the present. It’s always been a rough ride. Let’s see what we do next…
Are laws regulating immigration constitutional?
It seems like to me that any powers of government not specifically enumerated in the constitution are illegal.
Are is that opinion too “Tea Party”?
Article One, Section Eight, covers a lot of acreage.
“The Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
I hate what the RWNJs have done to the word “patriot”.
Australia is doing exactly that… today. And by today, I mean 9 July 2014.
Australian navy turns back asylum seeker boat to Indonesia after loading three extra people
Silence on missing asylum seeker boat a disgrace to the nation
High Court bars handover of asylum seekers to Sri Lanka
I do not find the word “immigration” in 1.8. This seems to refer to “naturalization” which is a different concept. “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Naturalization would have to do with paths to citizenship of immigrants if they should seek it once they get here. However, (in a very quick skimming) I do not see any specific power granted to regulate immigration (simply coming across the border) “as such”.
Perhaps we could get an opinion from noted constitutional expert Mr. Cliven Bundy, who has already proven from his reading that the Federal Government does not have the right to own property. Or Larry Klayman might be so good as to take it to the Supreme Court for us to get a final determination.
Meanwhile, until convinced otherwise, I think I shall hold the opinion that it is illegal for the Federal Government to regulate immigration except in cases where it can be proven that the act of immigration is motivated specifically for the purpose of Naturalization.
Egiopcios:
Actually this argument is not limited to Tea Partiers but is often advanced by others. Perhaps a little history will show why it is not a very good argument.
Article II of the first constitution – the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union – provided:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” Were this the present constitution of the United States, it would be obvious that Congress had only those powers expressly delegated.
The body of the present constitution does not contain this restriction. However, the Tenth Amendment provides: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Note the absence of the word “expressly”.
When the House of Representatives was considering the Bill of Rights in 1789, two congressman sought to insert the word “expressly” into the text of the Tenth Amendment:
“Mr. Tucker proposed to amend the proposition, by prefixing to it ‘all powers being derived from the people.’ He thought this a better place to make this assertion than the introductory clause of the Constitution, where a similar sentiment was proposed by the committee. He extended his motion also, to add the word ‘expressly,’ so as to read ‘the powers not expressly delegated by this Constitution.” 1 Annals of Congress 761 (August 18, 1789), and,
“The ninth proposition Mr. Gerry proposed to amend by inserting the word ‘expressly,’ so as to read ‘the powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’” 1 Annals of Congress 767-768 (August 21, 1789)
Both of these amendments to the Tenth Amendment were defeated. See: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendXs6.html
The people who would limit Congress to the powers enumerated in the body of the constitution ignore Section 8 of Article I, as Bonsall Obot points out, and would insert “expressly” into the Tenth Amendment though Congress rejected that insertion not once, but twice.
You will have to excuse some cynicism but I have noticed that the argument that the powers of Congress are limited to those expressly delegated is often made by those who don’t like what Congress has done, e.g. Obamacare, while it is never made when the same people benefit from what Congress has done, e.g. bailing out the megabanks and car companies.
Each and every American benefits from the bailing out of the car companies.
I’ve been watching some of the Olympics on my DVR (which I saved for the summer when there aren’t any good sports on TV) and was wondering why the Dutch wore orange (as well as what kind of freaky genetic engineering program was behind their dominance in speed skating). Please tell us.
As someone who grew up in Michigan and worked (briefly) for Delphi Packard (at the time a part of GM), I don’t think most people understand just how big a deal the collapse of the US auto industry would have been. The 30 million jobs in the industry supply chain would be just the start of the dominoes—Michigan would have lead the rest of the country into the second great depression.
Ohhhh the Royal House of Orange has lots and lots to answer for other than crimes against colour co-ordination….., ask Suranis about the Orange Order…..
Basically the same the Nazis have done to words like “Ehre” (“honour”), “Vaterland” (“fatherland”) or “stolz, Deutscher zu sein” (“proud to be German”) in the German language.
Even “Deutschland über alles” (“Germany above everything else”) from the first verse of the German national anthem was never understood as a supremacist claim before they came along (because it actually refers to the following words and was meant in context as “How great it is how Germans always stand up for the protection of their fellow men”).
Including carrots.
You meant the World (Soccer) Cup, didn’t you?
BTW, congratulations to our esteemed German posters for their team’s brilliant & superior performance against my own team (France), and also Brazil’s, although in the last case, I noticed there were periods as long as 12 minutes during which you did not score a goal. Obviously you’re getting weaker. 🙂
Expect me to root for the Dutch in what is likely the final contest. 🙂
There is a reality TV show on British TV that basically shows actual cases of people trying to sneak through Australian immigration and/or customs at Australian airports.
It’s basically a good show, although necessarily a bit repetitive after you’ve seen a fair number of episodes.
Despite the Australian officers knowing they’re being filmed & presumably being told to be on their best behavior, it is not a good incentive to visit Australia. (To be fair, the same show shot at American airports would be 100 times more appalling and discourage anyone from ever visiting America.)
Monckton was Garth Brooks for Halloween???
That’s the silliest thing I’ve seen all week. A wannabe lord would fit right in at Eskimo Joe’s in Stillwater. NOT! 😛
First, implied powers in general have long been recognized as constitutional, as explicitly established by the Supreme Court in Marshall’s opinion for McCullough v. Maryland (1819). See: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/case.html
Then, in terms of immigration itself, there have been at least a few pertinent cases. A key one is The Chinese Exclusion Case – 130 U.S. 581 (1889), which itself refers back to another opinion by Marshall, The Exchange v. McFaddon (1812).
See: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/130/581/case.html
“Those laborers are not citizens of the United States; they are aliens. That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence.
“If it could not exclude aliens, it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power. As said by this Court in the case of The Exchange, 7 Cranch 116, 11 U. S. 136, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall:
“‘The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.'”
Well, I didn’t score any goals so I can’t take any credit. 🙂
Truth be told, this was the one match where I would’ve been happy with either side winning (as I’m a huge fan of Brazil), but it had to be the one that was as lopsided as they come… I would’ve preferred a 4-3 in overtime for either side, in a game that echoes the most thrilling games ever, like the 3-4 OT against Italy in ’70, or the 3-3 OT (and win on penalties) against France in ’82.
If they end up runner-up for the 4th time in their 4th final, they’ll be the Buffalo Bills of soccer. 😉
No, I meant the Sochi Olympics. I tried to get interested in soccer when the World Cup was held in the US, but it just isn’t my cup of tea. In fact, it is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike my cup of tea.
Nailed it! Of course, that’s the palest, most googly-eyed Garth Brooks mask I’ve ever seen.
Until there’s a professional soccer team playing on the Frozen Tundra of Green Bay, WI, I’ll remain an Ugly American as far as the Beautiful Game goes.
Spin the Orange yarn – only if the Netherlanders (“Dutch”) win tonight against Argentinia.
Got to give it to him, he’s got the whole lazy, Western neck thing going on. Where’s that stiff British spine? 😉
/offtopic
Yesterdays game was strange. And it was not real fun. After the first two or three goals most people stopped their cheering and had one of the biggest face palm moments in their life.
Euro, I’m afraid I have to give you a yellow card for teasing us like that. So listen up: you’re spinning that yarn whether or not the Nederlanders win. Got it? 🙂
I used to drink Oranjeboom lager ($2.99* for a six-pack of pint cans at Trader Joe’s – couldn’t beat it!). My recollection – from reading the blurb on the cans – is that the orange tree is a symbol of the Dutch royal family. But now I want the rest of the story, and if you don’t want to pick up a red card, you’ll start spinning, baby!
*It’s $5.99 now.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/8
It never ceases to amaze me how much these people DON’T know about how to be a “patriot”.
I’m pretty sure that that entire section has pretty much been invalidated on 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech) grounds 40 years ago.
“In 1968, Abbie Hoffman, an antiwar activist, wore a flag shirt purchased at Sears and was arrested on Capital Hill as part of a demonstration, said Leepson. The police tore the shirt off of his back and sent Hoffman to jail for violating the federal flag protection law. Hoffman was convicted and the case was later overturned on appeal.”
http://www.timesdaily.com/archives/article_f7cd6389-3e30-5faa-901d-bf66f57b1443.html
Don’t confuse the flag code with various incarnations of “Flag Protection” Acts. One is a creed with of civic mores with no legal bite, the other is misguided statute prone to constant invalidation.
I don’t think I am. See Doc’s note above. There are no restrictions on anything related to the flag as clothing or other usage, contrary to the wording in that U.S. Code quoted.
Except for 4 USC §3 – which only applies in DC – I don’t see how violations of 4 USC are to be punished. It’s just a lot of boilerplate language, all bark and no bite.
/offtopic and my excuses to you, Doc
Crusty, the Dutch lost.
But I could not resist to show my superior knowledge (and the power of Wikipedia).
The short answer to the riddle is this:
„Orange“ is the national color of the Netherlands because this is the color of the orange-fruit. People mixed up this fruit with the name of their national hero, whilst his name has nothing to do with the fruit but comes from the City of Orange in France.
The long answer is here:
https://copy.com/Y3mLwSLFUOBC8TSz
And Corporations are people. A court case doesn’t doesn’t prove it was the correct ruling. (However, when an entire movement tries to sue the president over a birth certificate and can’t get standing, and constantly has their cases dismissed, over and over and over again…. THAT IS the correct ruling!)
I’m just saying, these birthers consider themselves Constitutionalists and seem to have no respect for the code that is supposed to protect our flag.
Final result (roughly translated from my slighlty funnier German posting on the issue):
Aryawntina – Netherlaying 0:0 after penalty sleeping
I would’ve watched GER-BRA again instead if my effin’ box hadn’t botched recording the second half…
I watched the Whole Argentinian-Netharlands game last night and it was a total snoozer. I’d have sent both teams home.
Ok the Orange Order. Its a bunch active in Northern Ireland. It essentially has a lot in common with the Klu-Klux-Klan, only for Protestants. Generally seen around July marching around in silly orange outfits, to commemorate where William of Orange faced off against 1/3 of King James army and nearly lost. (This was compounded when King James saw that part losing and ran away rather than counterattacking) Then they have the traditional bit of hand to hand fighting against the police which is finished off with a baton charge and everyone goes home.
One of their parades was stopped last year and they are STILL protesting it.
This is one of the reasons I am against a “united” Ireland. We would be in a civil war in days.
See this CRS Report for Congress on the display of the flag as prescribed by the Title 4 U.S. Code:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf
From its Background section
“Public concern and confusion regarding the proper respect shown to the United States flag has given rise to many questions on the law relating to the flag’s handling, display, and use….
“On the national level the Federal Flag Code provides uniform guidelines for the display of and respect shown to the flag….The Code is designed “for the use of such civilian groups or organizations as may not be required to conform with regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments” of the federal government. Thus, the Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include enforcement provisions; rather the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups. (Emphasis added.)
“The Federal Flag Code does not purport to cover all possible situations….The Flag Code itself, however, suggests a general rule by which practices involving the flag may be fairly tested: ‘No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America.’ Therefore, actions not specifically included in the Code may be deemed acceptable as long as proper respect is shown.”
Yeah, that.
I never said there should be penalties, but, I find it interesting that so many self-described “Patriots” disrespect our flag so often.
Indeed. I myself got your point, and provided that quote from the CRS report in order to bring the discussion back to your point (rather than legal issues). Also, that was one of the things in my mind while I watched Craig holding forth about the President while holding a ripped flag and wearing a flag bandana (as described above).
The hypocrisy or perhaps simply lack of self-awareness, while not criminal, is noteworthy. As you note.
They have very different ideas about what the flag represents. To me, it represents a set of ideals. As such, I can’t imagine disrespecting the flag by even displaying it improperly, much less intentionally desecrating it, even as a mode of expression. And I certainly don’t need to wrap myself in the flag to imply that I embody those ideals; my actions and words do so.
I think, for wingnuts, the flag literally is a symbol. A very hollow one. I think asking them to explain why flag desecration offends them would lead to very interesting answers … or blank stares. Perhaps anger that such a question would ever be asked … an expression of anger completely unable to mask inability to answer the question LOL
Footnotes 5 and 6 have been added to this article.