"Our flag represents every American and it should not be hidden away as a result of property agreements"
About this Quote
Mike Fitzpatrick ties a national symbol to a universal civic identity and, in doing so, challenges the reach of private contracts over public-minded expression. The flag is portrayed as belonging to everyone, a visual shorthand for shared citizenship that should not be subject to the whims of homeowners associations, condo boards, or restrictive covenants. By insisting it not be hidden, he casts property agreements as overstepping when they suppress an emblem that transcends individual ownership or neighborhood aesthetics.
The line echoes a recurring suburban dispute of the early 2000s, when residents in HOA-governed communities were told to remove flags from porches, lawns, or balconies in the name of uniformity. In response, Congress passed the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, which limited the ability of associations to prohibit flag displays on residential property. Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania congressman, was part of that push. The law reflected a compromise: it barred outright bans while allowing reasonable restrictions on size, placement, or safety. His phrasing, however, emphasizes the primacy of national identity over private rulemaking, framing the flag as a right to be honored rather than a decorative option to be managed.
There is a deeper constitutional undertone. Private covenants ordinarily fall outside First Amendment protections because they are not state action, yet the statement argues for federal intervention to preserve expressive space for a common symbol. That choice elevates civic cohesion above the autonomy of private associations, especially in the post-9/11 period when public affirmations of unity loomed large.
At stake is a broader question: how far should private agreements go in dictating the boundaries of visible identity in shared living spaces? Fitzpatrick suggests a clear limit. When a symbol stands for every American, its display ought not be relegated to a back room by fine print, but recognized as a modest, legitimate expression of belonging in the civic landscape.
The line echoes a recurring suburban dispute of the early 2000s, when residents in HOA-governed communities were told to remove flags from porches, lawns, or balconies in the name of uniformity. In response, Congress passed the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, which limited the ability of associations to prohibit flag displays on residential property. Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania congressman, was part of that push. The law reflected a compromise: it barred outright bans while allowing reasonable restrictions on size, placement, or safety. His phrasing, however, emphasizes the primacy of national identity over private rulemaking, framing the flag as a right to be honored rather than a decorative option to be managed.
There is a deeper constitutional undertone. Private covenants ordinarily fall outside First Amendment protections because they are not state action, yet the statement argues for federal intervention to preserve expressive space for a common symbol. That choice elevates civic cohesion above the autonomy of private associations, especially in the post-9/11 period when public affirmations of unity loomed large.
At stake is a broader question: how far should private agreements go in dictating the boundaries of visible identity in shared living spaces? Fitzpatrick suggests a clear limit. When a symbol stands for every American, its display ought not be relegated to a back room by fine print, but recognized as a modest, legitimate expression of belonging in the civic landscape.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|
More Quotes by Mike
Add to List
