Attorney general backs some limits on flag flying - Wednesday, 05/11/05
Fred Pilot sent me this link to a story that is just hard to believe. How could a state attorney general come up with an opinion like this? The article has a link to the proposed bill and the AG opinion. I haven't had time to read it. But the article text is remarkable:

People in Tennessee don't have the right to hang an American flag in their yard or from their balcony if doing so runs afoul of neighborhood rules, the state attorney general said in an opinion yesterday.

The ruling came in response to a bill in the legislature that would have made flying the American flag always legal, even in neighborhoods or buildings with restrictive covenants. The bill had been prompted by a flag controversy in Williamson County.

Attorney General Paul Summers says the bill is probably unconstitutional on three fronts.

• First, he said, it tampers with existing contracts between homeowners and neighborhood associations.

• Second, it probably violates the right to free speech by choosing the American flag over other flags or messages people might want to display.

• Also, Summers said, it may be construed as a move by the state to interfere with private property rights without compensation.



--------------
I don't know if the article summarizes his position accurately (in fact, I'm hoping it doesn't), but all of these grounds stated in the article are wrong. First, there is no contract clause violation here; second, the argument that protecting the American flag violates free speech rights because it prefers the US flag over the White Hand of Sauron is ridiculous; third, the suggestion that this is a takings clause violation is so ludicrous that I have a hard time believing anybody with a law license, much less a state attorney general, could say it. Numerous states have laws protecting the display of the flag in HOAs. The issue is not whether flag protection laws violate the constitution. The issue is whether HOA covenants restricting flag displays violate the constitution.

ps:
I have now read the brief opinion from this AG. As I suspected, there is no authority cited that could remotely support these bizarre conclusions. This person simply has no familiarity whatsoever with the law on this particular subject. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. The opinion is based on uninformed speculation about the application of general constitutional provisions, without any understanding of the existing body of law on how those provisions have been applied to date. Any legislator could get better informed on these issues with one hour spent using LEXIS.