Should US National Team Players Be Required To Stand For The National Anthem?

USSF officials are absolutely impersonating federal officials when they say the represent the country -- unless they are authorized by federal officials to represent the country. Only federal officials, or their designees, can represent the country. The statute thus applies to USSF.
Either USSF officials are authorized representatives of the country or they are not. And if they are not, their public statements to the contrary involve impersonation.

 

The statue does not say it is illegal to purport to "represent" the United States. It says it is illegal to purport to be an"employee" or "officer" of the United States government. Those words are key to the statue.

 

Insofar as only employees or officers of the United States are allowed to represent the country, the two things are synonymous.

USSF's defense would be that it does not really represent the country and that its public pronouncements otherwise are mere puffery. USSF's patriotic pageantry is all an elaborate fiction for which we as fans voluntarily -- and knowingly -- choose to suspend belief.

 

Yes. Up or out.

 

The word "represent" is not used in the statute. The statute is aimed at outlawing impersonating federal employees or officers, not preventing private entities from claiming to generally represent America in some other sense that has nothing to do with making false statements about Federal employee or officer status.

 

This has got to be one of the oddest posts on the topic I can remember. 'USSF officials are absolutely impersonating federal officials.....? Wow.

 

He actually does a decent job of couching his extreme positions in legal language, but when you drill down to his actual positions, they are extremely weak.

First he argued that the First Amendment should restrict USSF because it purports to represent the United States. This, however, is inconsistent with the purpose of constitutional restrictions, which are to restrict entities that wield governmental powers against non-consenting subjects. USSF wields no such power, and only can enforce legal rights against others through voluntary contractual relationships. The First Amendment therefore does not restrict USSF.

After I pointed this out, he abandoned this argument, and resorted to his second argument that USSF violates the criminal statute above based on purportedly "representing" the United States. But this law does not merely outlaw a private person or entity from claiming to broadly "represent" the people United States in any non-govermental fashion--the word "represent" is not even used in the statute. The law criminalizes impersonating federal government "employees" or "officers" for personal gain. Of course, no-one in USSF has purported to be an employee of the United States.

And "officer" of the United States is a technical term, used in the constitution, which defines two levels of officers: (1) principal officers, which must be appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate; and (2) inferior officers, who can be hired at the discretion of principle officers.

For example: A federal judge is a principal officer (think Gorsach appointment hearings). When he hires an attorney law clerk (a job I had for two years), the law clerk is an inferior officer.

No-one at USSF has impersonated either position.

 

I have not abandoned any arguments.

Is "employee" a technical term? Because the statute covers impersonating employees, too, and it pretty much swallows up the need for an arcane examination of different levels of "officer" within the federal government. And the act of "impersonation" seems to be construed pretty broadly by prosecutors. Evidently you don't have to give a pretend federal job title to be prosecuted and convicted.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterj...lue-calls-from-irs-just-hang-up/#76952f3d6e6b

As for your having been an "inferior officer" of the federal government at one time, your judge must be proud of you for not understanding that you cannot take the First Amendment literally when it talks about restraining only Congress. Wonder if the attorney who first argued the Bill of Rights should be broadened to encompass non-federal, state entities like the University of California at Berkeley, was sanctioned for his argument. How about the attorney who argued equal protection of the laws should be extended beyond merely freed slaves? A former law clerk should have a better grasp of Rule 11, not to mention the First Amendment.

My logic remains ironclad: if only federal officials can represent the country, then anyone taking money under pretense of representing the country, without authorization from the federal government, is in violation of 18 USC section 912.

 

I went back and forth with him last week in the same manner that you did. With me he said it was a employee free speech case, then he shifted toward it was a gender discrimination, then a covered minority discrimination case, then he shifted to a NRLB protected speech during a labor dispute case. He's making spurious possible arguments that have little basis in case law or court precedence. The uneducated or simple minded might fall for his framing of his arguments but when you drill down you can make many arguments that won't work in a court of law. He's doing that. Make any argument you want and have USSF answer the court and its an easy win for USSF to make such a policy.

 

As I've already explained, USSF's anthem policy can be both a free speech, a gender discrimination, and a labor law case simultaneously. Megan Rapinoe could make all of these claims without being inconsistent, and she could conceivably prevail on all of them.

Likewise, the discussion of the criminal statute prohibiting impersonation of federal officials does not involve abandoning my arguments about the Constitution, civil rights or labor laws. USSF, and its defenders on this board, defend the anthem policy on grounds that players who are privileged to "represent their country" must therefore show deference to the anthem. The problem is that it is not a given that USSF, or its players, actually represent the country. Insofar as they do, the Constitution necessarily applies. Insofar as USSF does not represent the country, 18 USC section 912 applies. And, regardless, gender discrimination and labor laws apply in Rapinoe's case.

 

It can be anything you say it is............but it isn't. Just because you are making faint arguments on all that it may possibly could maybe be, does not make it so. The back and forth was interesting until now. You fail to recognize that your points no matter how well crafted or continually written are inaccurate, misleading, and devoid of substance. And please stop saying 'necessarily applies'. Its pretentious, insular and ostentatious.

 

LOL. This must be a bot or something. He just hit reset, ignoring my post above clearly explaining why he's wrong.

 

His posts offer the type of misleading and dishonest legal advice that cons naïve individuals into thinking they have a case, giving up 5 figure retainers, till they get booted out of court on an MSJ (if not dumped out on the pleadings).

 

Now he's saying it can be all of those things. In reality for a quality argument to proceed it really can't be all of them.
I don't truly know what he's trying to accomplish. Impressing us with his legal arguments? Initiate a court proceeding to have USSF respond? Be a devil's advocate to USSF? Be a free speech advocate under all circumstances? Balance what may work in court? Offer what he truly believes in his heart? Actually analyze a winning argument in court? I don't know. It seems he's trying to be all things to all people which dilutes his arguments.

 

I think he just personally disagrees with the anthem protest ban and is flailing in an effort to discredit it. He's all over the place. He even suggested the national anthem is racist.

 

Argument #7. I have no problem with those who disagree with it. I have an issue with those that don't recognize the long legal history of courts allowing companies great latitude in restricting employees free speech while at work.

 

Wahl is always looking to stir up political shit.

 

Well, over the years I've occasionally seen USMNT players impersonating soccer players, so it's not impossible...

And for the record, Bradley's opinion is pretty much exactly mine, but I have hair.

 

Bald men get along.

 

Standing for NT matches feels more significant than an NFL game. Feels like a gray area for me if I agree with the player doing it. Kneeling isn't as big a sign of disrespect to me as it is to other people but that's just my opinion. Hard to take a side now without the other side being outraged.

 

There's also the fact that FIFA bans political statements during games (they won't even let players from the UK teams wear poppies on Remembrance Day) and the USSF policy is simply reminding players of that.

 

Pretty rational POV from Bradley. Ironically (and the USSF must understand this) kneeling during the anthem now would actually have meaning.

 

If your employer is making reasonable demands then you need to fulfill them. Standing for the National Anthem is not a political endorsement.

Also, as non-reactionary forms of public dissent are highly frowned upon in today's environment, there are more effective and prudent ways for sports stars to effect change.

 

As far as I understand it, the USSF is a private organization and is not a representative of the United States government, its politicians, or other state actors (such as local, state, or federal law enforcement). A 1st Amendment claim against this rule would be laughed out of court.

Moreover, representing the MNT and WMNT is a privilege, not a right. The coach can call you up or not for any reason.