You can understand our confusion on your point.

 

Heck, I caused the confusion myself. I meant to say "correct, is is NOT law."

I do.

 

I need to be clear since I had a typo.

 

You are in correct that this is LAW. These are guidelines. You cannot be arrested for not standing/not placing your hand on your heart/etc.

I need to be clear since I had a typo.

 

You are in correct that this is LAW. These are guidelines. You cannot be arrested for not standing/not placing your hand on your heart/etc.

 

Could you show me where it says guidelines.

Could you show me where it says guidelines.

 

Nathaniel Bryan did so above.

Could you show me where it says guidelines.

 

Could you show us ANYWHERE where this has been enacted into "positive law" as NOT all Codes are "positive laws" and NOT all codes are in the Statutes?

 

Could you show ANYWHERE what the penalty is for breaking the law?

 

How many laws have ZERO known penalties?

Nathaniel Bryan did so above.

 

I don't even see the word guidelines.

Could you show us ANYWHERE where this has been enacted into "positive law" as NOT all Codes are "positive laws" and NOT all codes are in the Statutes?

 

Could you show ANYWHERE what the penalty is for breaking the law?

 

How many laws have ZERO known penalties?

 

Your missing the point. I think we all should honor our flag.

Your missing the point. I think we all should honor our flag.

 

NONE of us arguing your "it's NOW law" stance are arguing against or dismissing the flag.

 

You're moving the goalposts when I showed just because it's code does NOT make it "enacted" as "positive law" (meaning penalties).

 

What's the point of having a law if there's no penalties for breaking it?

Maybe because it's NOT a law (but a lesser but still official code)? It's official (because it's in the Code).

 

But if we learned nothing else from Captain Jack Sparrow, it's that Code is "more like guidelines than actual rules." I know it's a movie, but there's still some truth in that.

 

Whether it's Code of Conduct for students or Building Code (for homebuilders), many times when you break a code, there's no legal penalty/procedure.

 

Sadly for you Jeepman, that's the case here.

Law or not, this country is getting substantially dumber by the day.

NONE of us arguing your "it's NOW law" stance are arguing against or dismissing the flag.

 

You're moving the goalposts when I showed just because it's code does NOT make it "enacted" as "positive law" (meaning penalties).

 

What's the point of having a law if there's no penalties for breaking it?

Maybe because it's NOT a law (but a lesser but still official code)? It's official (because it's in the Code).

 

But if we learned nothing else from Captain Jack Sparrow, it's that Code is "more like guidelines than actual rules." I know it's a movie, but there's still some truth in that.

 

Whether it's Code of Conduct for students or Building Code (for homebuilders), many times when you break a code, there's no legal penalty/procedure.

 

Sadly for you Jeepman, that's the case here.

 

Keep in mind I personally could care less what other people do. If you go back to my original post I said not all laws are followed. If you want to turn the other way and continue your conversation more power to you. It's your choice in this free country.

Sad day for our country

Keep in mind I personally could care less what other people do. If you go back to my original post I said not all laws are followed. If you want to turn the other way and continue your conversation more power to you. It's your choice in this free country.

 

Again, you're changing the argument.

 

"Not all laws are followed" -- Did we even prove this was an enacted positive law yet? YOU are the one who said it is "NOW law" (as if it had just been made recently).

 

"If you want to turn the other way and continue your conversation" - Did ANY of us take that stance? If so, I missed it. I don't think any rational poster here is ADVOCATING dismissing the flag. I certainly hope not, at least.

Law or not, this country is getting substantially dumber by the day.

 

Again, don't think anyone is for being obnoxious during the anthem.

 

However, there is a difference between Code and statute law. And so, to repeat something as "now law" multiple times like it is 100 percent set in stone, well, that does NOT come across looking great.

 

Doesn't mean I'm necessarily against having an "enacted positive law" for it. When the national anthem comes up, I will stand, be silent, remove my hat (although I don't usually wear one) and place my right hand over my heart and look for the flag.

 

I think many people are in the same boat. And yes, you can AGREE to respect the flag yet DISAGREE it is not a law in the legal sense of other things.

 

It's entirely possible.

Again, you're changing the argument.

 

"Not all laws are followed" -- Did we even prove this was an enacted positive law yet? YOU are the one who said it is "NOW law" (as if it had just been made recently).

 

"If you want to turn the other way and continue your conversation" - Did ANY of us take that stance? If so, I missed it. I don't think any rational poster here is ADVOCATING dismissing the flag. I certainly hope not, at least.

 

Not speaking of you or anyone on here. Just what I see from time to time at games. I'm not arguing your point.