Mayor orders man removed after he didn't stand for Pledge of Allegiance

[MrMickeysMom]

111. Oh, you're right about he or she must know the laws… but, for God's sake...

… My initial statement about the first amendment having nothing to do with sworn oath was in response to the mayor's removal of a citizen for not standing for the pledge. That sure is true that he or she must know the laws. What he decided to do in my interpretation was odd, because in my poor reading of it first pass, it was to have been based on the first amendment? Well, that was really odd. This is why I said the first amendment had, "nothing to do with sworn oath". I might have understood you better by knowing we were not discussing some opinion from the mayor's role. I seek to be understood here and understand others, so, if I incorrectly read into what led me to that statement, I surely erred. I see from this Orlando case and other cases such as Greece, NY, this first amendment challenge was from the citizen's rights when deciding not to stand. FFS, what would one do if they had to explain in public, "No, I have neuropathy" or some other malady?

You don't have to worry about me running for office again. No good deed ever goes unpunished. This is something you likely do not wish to understand, and frankly, you're better practiced at admonishing persons about running rather than know what I directed my argument to. So, rather than probe as to whether the law they had to abide by was under home rule charter, which really is a municipal constitution, thanks for that great advice.

I can tell you this, though. A mayor does not serve as an executive, but an elected position of limited to presiding over meetings, kissing babies, and running the meetings in accordance with Robert's Rules.