Dan Scavino posted this on his story 25 min ago, what’s everyone’s take?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (206)
sorted by:
Sure, see McCann v. Greenway (1997), for example.
Do you not find it even vaguely odd that your citation is to a random website, as opposed to the case law, or something published in a law review?
So in a military court the flag displayed with gold fringe means nothing?
It has no legal significance, if that's what you're asking. It's merely an aesthetic feature.
In heraldry, every color, every single piece, means something. Flags are portable heraldry, as the original shield were. (Insert meme here) One cannot simply add junk to a flag.
Well, one can of course add junk to a flag; it's a physically possible action. Regardless, the existence of a fringe on a flag has no legal significance.
The case is an argument that the courtroom was under martial law simply because the gold fringe flag was present. Not apples to apples. The gold fringe on the flag at elementary schools and on display and some courtrooms isn’t the secret code for military law. But In a military court the flag with gold fringe does indeed mean the constitution is suspended
No, there's no support anywhere in statute or common law for that claim. No court or body of lawyers in the United States would entertain this argument, even briefly.