Posted on 06/07/2002 7:27:42 AM PDT by LarryLied
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:36 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Palm Beach County's "flag man," who is facing foreclosure on his home for refusing to take down a U.S. flag, has a fan in Tallahassee.
George Andres, the former Marine who has been sued by his homeowners association over a 12-foot flagpole and American flag he erected in his yard, received some encouraging words this week from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
In a letter to Andres signed by Bush, the governor expressed support for Andres' ongoing legal dispute.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Law of competing harms bump!!!
I say that if they try to forclose and kick him out of his home - that we force them to go through a couple hundred (or more) freepers first!
I would assume the motion will be granted. The HOA has no legal claim anymore, although I am usually not to keen of "retroactive" laws.
This shows that either somebody has been telling Bush a fib or Bush is being disengenuous. I would err in favor of Bush in this instance. Somebody told him it was a small flag. Furthermore any legislation that impairs the obligation of contracts (Senate Bill 148) is unconstitutional since it violates the specific prohibition in the constitution against such legislation in article 8 Section 10.
Furthermore, it isn't a "small" flag. I oppose these kinds of restrictions but he did volunteer to be subject to the homeowners association when he bought his house. He is obligated by contract to allow the homeowners association to dictate to him the terms of his property modifications.
One could argue that all of it, flag or no, violates his free speech rights. However, he signed a contract and two courts have ruled against him.
... If the Governor can pardon a murderer, why can't he issue a pardon for a veteran flying the flag?
C'mon counselor, you know better than that. This flag flap is a civil matter, and to compare it to a criminal case is the worst sort of apples-and-oranges hyperbole.
I like Jeb Bush in general, but he's dead wrong on this one. Ex post facto laws are a bad idea. The truculent homeowner may have every right to fly a US flag, but his "rights" don't trump the voluntary agreement he willingly signed to live in the neighborhood he lives in. The homeowner's association filed suit against the man for flouting their rules WHICH THE MAN AGREED TO WHEN HE MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, which they have a complete right to do.
Tempest in a teacup, this one. The guy should move out of the neighborhood and the HA should drop their legal action. Problem solved.
They're also unconstitutional. This one is doubly so since the states are forbidden to either write ex post facto laws or impair the "obligation of contracts." This guy is dead wrong. He could keep his house if he'd simply take down the flag and honor his obligations. I'm betting that if he attacked one of those small flags to his house he'd be allowed to do so.
OK, but what if the board passed this rule after this guy had moved in to the neighborhood, thereby depriving him of his right to do as he wished on his property? Does he have a grievance then, because this is an unjust law? Or does the homeowner's association have the right to do this?
Then there would be no "meeting of the minds" on the civil contract between him and the HA, and he would have a legitimate grievance in my opinion. Again, that would be a civil matter and would be up to a judge to decide. Jeb Bush trying to shoehorn his way into this matter is still flat wrong.
It is a small flag. There are as large or larger flags in his neighborhood. The issue was, according to the HOA, how it was displayed, not the size of the flag. The flag is not obtrusive in any way.
This article was picked up from the Jupiter Courier by the Sun Sentinel. The Courier has photos, the Sentinel does not. Could someone post a picture of the flag and George on this thread? The Jupiter Courier changed their web site a while back and it freezes my browser.
These people like to call themselves 'conservatives' or 'libertarians' when in reality they are nothing more than the product of 50 years of liberal education and social engineering.
It's sad but their refusal to uphold the requirement to obey contracts they willingly sign is a clear representation of the degeneration of our society into a collection of emotionally retarded anarchists. It is their promulgation of "the rules apply to you but not to me" attitude that will result in the destruction of our society and our country.
The Founders assumed they would be leaving their country in the hands of adults. They were wrong.
NP, and thanks for the update. You're right, it ISN'T over yet. This whole thing doesn't strike me as being about one veteran and his properly displayed flag...IMO, it's politics, pure and simple. It's about the 2000 presidential election, AND the 2002 gobinatorial election, and the HOA and it's pet judge will continue to flout Florida law until Florida law jumps on them with both feet...then the judge and HOA will pull the old "victim of patriotism run amok" routine.
can this cancel 2 court rulings?!
I heard there was no ban on flags when the man moved into the neighborhood in 1998, and that he is fighting because his original agreement has no flag prohibition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.