the law stated that men and women should stand at attention and face the direction of the music on june 22, 1942.
when did the law state that men and women should stand at attention and face the direction of the music?
june 22, 1942
when the u.s. national anthem was first recognized by law in 1931, there was no prescription as to behavior during its playing. on june 22, 1942, the law was revised indicating that those in uniform should salute during its playing, while others should simply stand at attention, men removing their hats. the same code also required that women should place their hands over their hearts when the flag is displayed during the playing of the national anthem, but not if the flag was not present. on december 23, 1942, the law was again revised instructing men and women to stand at attention and face in the direction of the music when it was played. that revision also directed men and women to place their hands over their hearts only if the flag was displayed. those in uniform were required to salute. on july 7, 1976, the law was simplified. men and women were instructed to stand with their hands over their hearts, men removing their hats, irrespective of whether or not the flag was displayed and those in uniform saluting. on august 12, 1998, the law was rewritten keeping the same instructions, but differentiating between "those in uniform" and "members of the armed forces and veterans" who were both instructed to salute during the playing whether or not the flag was displayed. because of the changes in law over the years and confusion between instructions for the pledge of allegiance versus the national anthem, throughout most of the 20th century many people simply stood at attention or with their hands folded in front of them during the playing of the anthem, and when reciting the pledge they would hold their hand (or hat) over their heart. after 9/11, the custom of placing the hand over the heart during the playing of the national anthem became nearly universal.
the star-spangled banner
if the talaq is executed in a state where it is effective to terminate the marriage, this potentially affects the status and capacity of the spouses so that they are then free to remarry. within the conflict system, the enforcement of foreign judgments is a reasonably well-regulated area. but this form of divorce is only quasi-judicial at best, so it falls outside the normal rules. the general expectation as to choice of law depends on the characterization of the issue. as a form of divorce, the rule might be that the "lex loci actus" (the law of the place where the transaction took place) should be applied and recognized universally so that the parties would avoid a limping marriage (i.e. that whether they are considered married will change depending on which states they visit or reside in). however, this may be against public policy because one of the parties is seeking to evade some mandatory provisions of law or it is not in the best interests of any children (see "parens patriae"). if the characterization is status/capacity, this will be determined under the "lex domicilii" (the law of the domicile) in a common law state, and under the "lex patriae" (the law of the nationality) or habitual residence in a civil law state. alternatively, the court seized of the matter might apply the "lex fori" (the municipal law of the forum state).
conflict of divorce laws