Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My answer is that it is constitutional. There is no reason to think otherwise.
And you have not shown that there is any reason to think otherwise.
Not if it's federally protected.
I'm quite sure that the city of Washington, D.C., does not have the right to take down the Washington Monument.
The angry bed wetting is by people who can't let go of the past and want to re-fight the Civil War even though their side won.
Which of the town statues under discussion are federally protected?
No, the citizens of Washington DC do not have the power to take down federal statues. Obviously. Why? Because they don't own them. Congress does.
But Washington DC can take down statues that it owns.
It isn't me who is so blinded by emotion that I am turning myself into a pretzel to avoid admitting the obvious here - that a town that owns a statue placed on town-owned land has the right to take it down.
Which of the town statues under discussion are federally protected?
No, the citizens of Washington DC do not have the power to take down federal statues. Obviously. Why? Because they don't own them. Congress does.
But Washington DC can take down statues that it owns.
It isn't me who is so blinded by emotion that I am turning myself into a pretzel to avoid admitting the obvious here - that a town that owns a statue placed on town-owned land has the right to take it down.
Not if it's federally protected they don't.
And there is no constitutional reason why a statue couldn't be federally protected as historically significant. Regardless of who owns it.
Use your imagination, I am sure you will figure it out.
No. How about you get straight to the point and say what you really mean instead of asking me to "use my imagination". In my case, I get to the point and say what I mean. How about you do the same.
I have been proposing that they be federally protected, not saying that they are federally protected.
But you already knew that.
Are you going to keep on with this?
You aren't getting anywhere.
Neither are you.
The fact remains that a town has the right to take down a statue that it owns. And even if you managed to get federal protection for all commemorative statues in the country, regardless of who owns them, that will not affect the statues that have already been taken down.
Please let us know when your bill is introduced and who is sponsoring it. I for one would be genuinely interested to see how it's drafted.
The fact remains that a town has the right to take down a statue that it own[s.
Not if it's federally protected.
Quote:
And even if you managed to get federal protection for all commemorative statues in the country, regardless of who owns them, that will not affect the statues that have already been taken down.
There is no reason why they couldn't be protected as well, and put back up.
A retroactive law? That would also be breaking new ground.
No reason it couldn't happen.
Whether it will or not remains to be seen.
I hope it does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
