I guess if we want a real answer we could ask on a Prius forum. Maybe they would know for sure.
Flag Etiquette
- Thread starter rookieTJ
- Start date
When the flag is on the passenger side (and you're looking at it from the passenger side), the stars should be to the right, as if it was flying in the wind with the vehicle moving forward. Getting the flag the right way isn't that hard.
TJ2
TJ Expert
Yes, just as if you are flying a flag and the vehicle is moving. When looking at the right side of the vehicle the blue field is on the right of the flag. The blue field shall always be forward. Never retreat.
All this angst over where the stars must be, yet I have to wonder how many of the most rigid sticklers for flag rules can properly recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
It is not:
I pledge allegiance to the flag [pause]
of the United States of America [pause]
and to the Republic for which it stands [pause]
one Nation [pause]
under God [pause]
indivisible [pause]
with liberty and justice for all [inhale].
It is:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Think about it. We are not just pledging allegiance to a flag, we are pledging allegiance to our Republic, founded as one nation under God. That part of it seems to get lost in the words when one recites the Pledge like a second grader struggling to string together three words at a time, but go to any public meeting where the Pledge is recited and we all still recite it like second graders even though we know all the words perfectly well and graduated from second grade long ago.
It is not:
I pledge allegiance to the flag [pause]
of the United States of America [pause]
and to the Republic for which it stands [pause]
one Nation [pause]
under God [pause]
indivisible [pause]
with liberty and justice for all [inhale].
It is:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Think about it. We are not just pledging allegiance to a flag, we are pledging allegiance to our Republic, founded as one nation under God. That part of it seems to get lost in the words when one recites the Pledge like a second grader struggling to string together three words at a time, but go to any public meeting where the Pledge is recited and we all still recite it like second graders even though we know all the words perfectly well and graduated from second grade long ago.
Last edited:
Back to rookieTJ's post, I just thought of this, Aren't the factory installed spare tires somewhat right of center? It's windy and snowing here or I'd go out and double check.
My factory spare carrier was slightly right of center, I'm assuming all years versions were also. I could only assume it was an effort to shorten the lever to help protect the hinges. My swing away carrier puts the spare in the middle and I like that look better.
Well, this took a different turn. As far as I was taught, when a flag is being using for a procession (whether by foot or vehicle) the flag should be on the right side (aka the right/passenger side of the vehicle). In my case its not a procession but I am putting it on my vehicle, so this is the closest thing to compare it to. So I know technically it is suppose to be on the passenger side, just look at Cadillac One. But I am unsure if mounting center is acceptable. As mentioned before by @TJ2 , our flag is sacred, and shouldn't be taken granted, especially during times like this. The last thing I want is to show any disrespect to it.
Now to reference how to affix a sticker onto a vehicle (such a car/plane/whatever else) depends on the side. On the drivers side of the vehicle the flag decal shall have the stars on the upper left hand side. On the passenger side, the flag decal shall have the stars on the Upper Right side. Don't ask me why, I never bothered asking for an explanation.
Now to reference how to affix a sticker onto a vehicle (such a car/plane/whatever else) depends on the side. On the drivers side of the vehicle the flag decal shall have the stars on the upper left hand side. On the passenger side, the flag decal shall have the stars on the Upper Right side. Don't ask me why, I never bothered asking for an explanation.
Right side, stars to the front always leading.
But I don’t condemn anyone for flying old glory. Most, including me do not practice proper technique. Mine on my house is not lit during the night, hangs at a 45 degree angle and is in inclimate weather as well as my Trump flag which is displayed in my front window, is the same size.
My shirts and uniforms however have it on correctly. I take it seriously but not to the point of berating others unless they are disrespectful on purpose.
But I don’t condemn anyone for flying old glory. Most, including me do not practice proper technique. Mine on my house is not lit during the night, hangs at a 45 degree angle and is in inclimate weather as well as my Trump flag which is displayed in my front window, is the same size.
My shirts and uniforms however have it on correctly. I take it seriously but not to the point of berating others unless they are disrespectful on purpose.
Since the face mask mandate came into effect in my town, my "mask" of choice has been an American flag neck gaiter when I walk into a store. That is in no way up to flag code, but I simply don't care. I'd rather show my support for the American flag than not.
TJ2
TJ Expert
How about changing the stripe colors into a Blue stripe or Black?
I think that is disrespectful to our Republic .
I think that is disrespectful to our Republic .
Regardless of the words, I think these types of flags are used to separate rather than unite. I will not fly them.
Many posts so far have largely ignored that the Federal Flag Code (36 U.S.C 171 et seq.) imposes no penalties for non-compliance and there are no enforcement provisions. Until it was enacted in 1942 the issue was left to the states, and it is not coincidental that the Federal Flag Code was enacted by Congress and signed by President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after the start of WWII at a time when patriotic fervor was at its highest and immediately after a decade during which the Federal government had radically expanded its own power and diminished the power of the states by taking plenary control over all interstate commerce. It is also not a coincidence that the Federal flag anti-desecration statutes were passed during a time that public opinion was turning against the war in Vietnam. The Code provides guidelines for civilian use. It has no application to the military which has its own set of rules, and the military rules have no application to civilians.
The lack of penalties and enforcement provisions pretty much reduces the "no no" of flying the flag backwards or on the wrong side of a vehicle to the same level as chewing with one's mouth open or picking one's nose at a stoplight - bad manners and a sign of very poor upbringing but not much more, particularly so when one considers the Supreme Count free speech cases that followed the Vietnam War protests of the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Think about it. If the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and federal flag desecration statutes are an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights, and if Texas v. Johnson and its progeny hold that one can burn the United States Flag with impunity as an exercise of political speech, and that burning the flag in protest deserves the same First Amendment protections as displaying it in pride, then how can displaying the flag on the left side of a vehicle rather than the right be such a big deal?
"1777: Approval of Flag Design — The Continental Congress approved the stars and stripes design for the new American flag on June 14, 1777 (Flag Day) in order to designate and protect U.S. ships at sea. However, the flag did not become a widely used or generally popular symbol until after the Civil War.
"1897: Adoption of State Flag Desecration Statutes — By the late 1800's an organized flag protection movement was born in reaction to perceived commercial and political misuse of the flag. After supporters failed to obtain federal legislation, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota became the first States to adopt flag desecration statutes. By 1932, all of the States had adopted flag desecration laws.
"In general, these State laws outlawed: (i) placing any kind of marking on the flag, whether for commercial, political, or other purposes; (ii) using the flag in any form of advertising; and (iii) publicly mutilating, trampling, defacing, defiling, defying or casting contempt, either by words or by act, upon the flag. Under the model flag desecration law, the term "flag" was defined to include any flag, standard, ensign, or color, or any representation of such made of any substance whatsoever and of any size that evidently purported to be said flag or a picture or representation thereof, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and stripes in any number, or by which the person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag of the U.S.
"1907: Halter v. Nebraska (205 U.S. 34) — The Supreme Court held that although the flag was a federal creation, the States' had the authority to promulgate flag desecration laws under their general police power to safeguard public safety and welfare.
Halter involved a conviction of two businessmen selling "Stars and Stripes" brand beer with representations of the U.S. flag affixed to the labels. The defendants did not raise any First Amendment claim.
"1931: Stromberg v. California (283 U.S. 359) — The Supreme Court found that a State statute prohibiting the display of a "red flag" as a sign of opposition to organized government unconstitutionally infringed on the defendant's First Amendment rights. Stromberg represented the Court's first declaration that "symbolic speech" was protected by the First Amendment.
"1942: Federal Flag Code (36 U.S.C. 171 et seq.) — On June 22, 1942, President Roosevelt approved the Federal Flag Code, providing for uniform guidelines for the display and respect shown to the flag. The Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include any enforcement provisions, rather it functions simply as a guide for voluntary civilian compliance.
"1943: West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624) — The Supreme Court held that public school children could not be compelled to salute the U.S. flag. In a now famous passage, Justice Jackson highlighted the importance of freedom of expression under the First Amendment:
"'Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.'
"1968: Adoption of Federal Flag Desecration Law (18 U.S.C. 700 et seq.) — Congress approved the first federal flag desecration law in the wake of a highly publicized Central Park flag burning incident in protest of the Vietnam War. The federal law made it illegal to "knowingly" cast "contempt" upon "any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it." The law defined flag in an expansive manner similar to most States.
"1969: Street v. New York (394 U.S. 576) — The Supreme Court held that New York could not convict a person based on his verbal remarks disparaging the flag. Street was arrested after he learned of the shooting of civil rights leader James Meredith and reacted by burning his own flag and exclaiming to a small crowd that if the government could allow Meredith to be killed, "we don't need no damn flag." The Court avoided deciding whether flag burning was protected by the First Amendment, and instead overturned the conviction based on Street's oral remarks. In Street, the Court found there was not a sufficient governmental interest to warrant regulating verbal criticism of the flag.
"1974: Smith v. Goguen (415 U.S. 94) — The Supreme Court held that Massachusetts could not prosecute a person for wearing a small cloth replica of the flag on the seat of his pants based on a State law making it a crime to publicly treat the flag of the United States with "contempt." The Massachusetts statute was held to be unconstitutionally "void for vagueness."
"1974: Spence v. Washington (418 U.S. 405) — The Supreme Court held that the State of Washington could not convict a person for attaching removable tape in the form of a peace sign to a flag. The defendant had attached the tape to his flag and draped it outside of his window in protest of the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State killings. The Court again found under the First Amendment there was not a sufficient governmental interest to justify regulating this form of symbolic speech. Although not a flag burning case, this represented the first time the Court had clearly stated that protest involving the physical use of the flag should be seen as a form of protected expression under the First Amendment.
"1970-1980: Revision of State Flag Desecration Statutes — During this period legislatures in some 20 States narrowed the scope of their flag desecration laws in an effort to conform to perceived Constitutional restrictions under the Street, Smith, and Spence cases and to more generally parallel the federal law (i.e., focusing more specifically on mutilation and other forms of physical desecration, rather than verbal abuse or commercial or political misuse).
"1989: Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397) — The Supreme Court upheld the Texas Court of Criminal appeals finding that Texas law — making it a crime to "desecrate" or otherwise "mistreat" the flag in a way the "actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons" — was unconstitutional as applied. This was the first time the Supreme Court had directly considered the applicability of the First Amendment to flag burning.
"Gregory Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, was arrested during a demonstration outside of the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas after he set fire to a flag while protestors chanted "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you." In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Brennan, the Court first found that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech subject to protection under the First Amendment. The Court also determined that under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), since the State law was related to the suppression of freedom of expression, the conviction could only be upheld if Texas could demonstrate a "compelling" interest in its law. The Court next found that Texas' asserted interest in "protecting the peace" was not implicated under the facts of the case. Finally, while the Court acknowledged that Texas had a legitimate interest in preserving the flag as a "symbol of national unity," this interest was not sufficiently compelling to justify a "content based" legal restriction (i.e., the law was not based on protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but was designed to protect it from symbolic protest likely to cause offense to others).
"1989: Revision of Federal Flag Desecration Statute — Pursuant to the Flag Protection Act of 1989, Congress amended the 1968 federal flag desecration statute in an effort to make it "content neutral" and conform to the Constitutional requirements of Johnson. As a result, the 1989 Act sought to prohibit flag desecration under all circumstances by deleting the statutory requirement that the conduct cast contempt upon the flag and narrowing the definition of the term "flag" so that its meaning was not based on the observation of third parties.
"1990: United States v. Eichman (496 U.S. 310) — Passage of the Flag Protection Act resulted in a number of flag burning incidents protesting the new law. The Supreme Court overturned several flag burning convictions brought under the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Court held that notwithstanding Congress' effort to adopt a more content neutral law, the federal law continued to be principally aimed at limiting symbolic speech.
"1990: Rejection of Constitutional Amendment — Following the Eichman decision, Congress considered and rejected a Constitutional Amendment specifying that "the Congress and the States have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The amendment failed to muster the necessary two-thirds Congressional majorities, as it was supported by only a 254–177 margin in the House (290 votes were necessary) and a 58–42 margin in the Senate (67 votes were necessary)."
See: https://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/desecration.htm
The lack of penalties and enforcement provisions pretty much reduces the "no no" of flying the flag backwards or on the wrong side of a vehicle to the same level as chewing with one's mouth open or picking one's nose at a stoplight - bad manners and a sign of very poor upbringing but not much more, particularly so when one considers the Supreme Count free speech cases that followed the Vietnam War protests of the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Think about it. If the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and federal flag desecration statutes are an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights, and if Texas v. Johnson and its progeny hold that one can burn the United States Flag with impunity as an exercise of political speech, and that burning the flag in protest deserves the same First Amendment protections as displaying it in pride, then how can displaying the flag on the left side of a vehicle rather than the right be such a big deal?
"Timeline of Flag Desecration Issues
"This timeline is from Committee on the Judiciary""1777: Approval of Flag Design — The Continental Congress approved the stars and stripes design for the new American flag on June 14, 1777 (Flag Day) in order to designate and protect U.S. ships at sea. However, the flag did not become a widely used or generally popular symbol until after the Civil War.
"1897: Adoption of State Flag Desecration Statutes — By the late 1800's an organized flag protection movement was born in reaction to perceived commercial and political misuse of the flag. After supporters failed to obtain federal legislation, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota became the first States to adopt flag desecration statutes. By 1932, all of the States had adopted flag desecration laws.
"In general, these State laws outlawed: (i) placing any kind of marking on the flag, whether for commercial, political, or other purposes; (ii) using the flag in any form of advertising; and (iii) publicly mutilating, trampling, defacing, defiling, defying or casting contempt, either by words or by act, upon the flag. Under the model flag desecration law, the term "flag" was defined to include any flag, standard, ensign, or color, or any representation of such made of any substance whatsoever and of any size that evidently purported to be said flag or a picture or representation thereof, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and stripes in any number, or by which the person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag of the U.S.
"1907: Halter v. Nebraska (205 U.S. 34) — The Supreme Court held that although the flag was a federal creation, the States' had the authority to promulgate flag desecration laws under their general police power to safeguard public safety and welfare.
Halter involved a conviction of two businessmen selling "Stars and Stripes" brand beer with representations of the U.S. flag affixed to the labels. The defendants did not raise any First Amendment claim.
"1931: Stromberg v. California (283 U.S. 359) — The Supreme Court found that a State statute prohibiting the display of a "red flag" as a sign of opposition to organized government unconstitutionally infringed on the defendant's First Amendment rights. Stromberg represented the Court's first declaration that "symbolic speech" was protected by the First Amendment.
"1942: Federal Flag Code (36 U.S.C. 171 et seq.) — On June 22, 1942, President Roosevelt approved the Federal Flag Code, providing for uniform guidelines for the display and respect shown to the flag. The Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include any enforcement provisions, rather it functions simply as a guide for voluntary civilian compliance.
"1943: West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624) — The Supreme Court held that public school children could not be compelled to salute the U.S. flag. In a now famous passage, Justice Jackson highlighted the importance of freedom of expression under the First Amendment:
"'Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.'
"1968: Adoption of Federal Flag Desecration Law (18 U.S.C. 700 et seq.) — Congress approved the first federal flag desecration law in the wake of a highly publicized Central Park flag burning incident in protest of the Vietnam War. The federal law made it illegal to "knowingly" cast "contempt" upon "any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it." The law defined flag in an expansive manner similar to most States.
"1969: Street v. New York (394 U.S. 576) — The Supreme Court held that New York could not convict a person based on his verbal remarks disparaging the flag. Street was arrested after he learned of the shooting of civil rights leader James Meredith and reacted by burning his own flag and exclaiming to a small crowd that if the government could allow Meredith to be killed, "we don't need no damn flag." The Court avoided deciding whether flag burning was protected by the First Amendment, and instead overturned the conviction based on Street's oral remarks. In Street, the Court found there was not a sufficient governmental interest to warrant regulating verbal criticism of the flag.
"1974: Smith v. Goguen (415 U.S. 94) — The Supreme Court held that Massachusetts could not prosecute a person for wearing a small cloth replica of the flag on the seat of his pants based on a State law making it a crime to publicly treat the flag of the United States with "contempt." The Massachusetts statute was held to be unconstitutionally "void for vagueness."
"1974: Spence v. Washington (418 U.S. 405) — The Supreme Court held that the State of Washington could not convict a person for attaching removable tape in the form of a peace sign to a flag. The defendant had attached the tape to his flag and draped it outside of his window in protest of the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State killings. The Court again found under the First Amendment there was not a sufficient governmental interest to justify regulating this form of symbolic speech. Although not a flag burning case, this represented the first time the Court had clearly stated that protest involving the physical use of the flag should be seen as a form of protected expression under the First Amendment.
"1970-1980: Revision of State Flag Desecration Statutes — During this period legislatures in some 20 States narrowed the scope of their flag desecration laws in an effort to conform to perceived Constitutional restrictions under the Street, Smith, and Spence cases and to more generally parallel the federal law (i.e., focusing more specifically on mutilation and other forms of physical desecration, rather than verbal abuse or commercial or political misuse).
"1989: Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397) — The Supreme Court upheld the Texas Court of Criminal appeals finding that Texas law — making it a crime to "desecrate" or otherwise "mistreat" the flag in a way the "actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons" — was unconstitutional as applied. This was the first time the Supreme Court had directly considered the applicability of the First Amendment to flag burning.
"Gregory Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, was arrested during a demonstration outside of the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas after he set fire to a flag while protestors chanted "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you." In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Brennan, the Court first found that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech subject to protection under the First Amendment. The Court also determined that under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), since the State law was related to the suppression of freedom of expression, the conviction could only be upheld if Texas could demonstrate a "compelling" interest in its law. The Court next found that Texas' asserted interest in "protecting the peace" was not implicated under the facts of the case. Finally, while the Court acknowledged that Texas had a legitimate interest in preserving the flag as a "symbol of national unity," this interest was not sufficiently compelling to justify a "content based" legal restriction (i.e., the law was not based on protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but was designed to protect it from symbolic protest likely to cause offense to others).
"1989: Revision of Federal Flag Desecration Statute — Pursuant to the Flag Protection Act of 1989, Congress amended the 1968 federal flag desecration statute in an effort to make it "content neutral" and conform to the Constitutional requirements of Johnson. As a result, the 1989 Act sought to prohibit flag desecration under all circumstances by deleting the statutory requirement that the conduct cast contempt upon the flag and narrowing the definition of the term "flag" so that its meaning was not based on the observation of third parties.
"1990: United States v. Eichman (496 U.S. 310) — Passage of the Flag Protection Act resulted in a number of flag burning incidents protesting the new law. The Supreme Court overturned several flag burning convictions brought under the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Court held that notwithstanding Congress' effort to adopt a more content neutral law, the federal law continued to be principally aimed at limiting symbolic speech.
"1990: Rejection of Constitutional Amendment — Following the Eichman decision, Congress considered and rejected a Constitutional Amendment specifying that "the Congress and the States have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The amendment failed to muster the necessary two-thirds Congressional majorities, as it was supported by only a 254–177 margin in the House (290 votes were necessary) and a 58–42 margin in the Senate (67 votes were necessary)."
See: https://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/desecration.htm
Last edited: