US Supreme Court to review Stolen Valor Act

[Dad2-4]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/17/supreme-court-to-take-up-stolen-valor-act/
Mr. Alvarez clearly violated the law. Let's all pray that the law is upheld by the Supreme Court. Granted, I don't like to see random people wearing medals just as a fashion, but to claim to be an actual recipient and use that claim to further your own puposes is wrong.

[SABRE17]

It's about time...

[RiverAux]

Never quite understood how this got thrown out.  If the Supremes decide against the Act it will be interesting to see how they deal with the general issue of the federal government having an interest in controlling who wears military uniforms and parts thereof. 

[SARDOC]

Never quite understood how this got thrown out.  If the Supremes decide against the Act it will be interesting to see how they deal with the general issue of the federal government having an interest in controlling who wears military uniforms and parts thereof.

The Act got thrown out by the ninth Circuit Court of appeals as unconstitutional because it violated the plaintiff's right to free Speech.  It can't be made against the law unless the government had a legitimate compelling need to restrict it.  The analogy was made that lying about your height or weight is still lying but like the Stolen Valor Act that the Government doesn't have a compelling need to restrict.  There was no tangible fraud in this case so it was dismissed.

That being said I think wearing awards for Valor that you did not earn is wrong and completely disrespectful of those who have.

[RiverAux]

The analogy was made that lying about your height or weight is still lying but like the Stolen Valor Act that the Government doesn't have a compelling need to restrict.  There was no tangible fraud in this case so it was dismissed.

Guess some pounds are going to come off my drivers license next time I renew!

[JeffDG]

The Act got thrown out by the ninth Circuit Court of appeals as unconstitutional because it violated the plaintiff's right to free Speech. 

The Act was invalidated by the 9th.  The Supremes regularly reach 9-0 reversals of the 9th.

IIRC, it's the most frequently reversed court.

[NCRblues]

The 9th circus court... ya they are some winners.

[SARDOC]

The Act was invalidated by the 9th.  The Supremes regularly reach 9-0 reversals of the 9th.

IIRC, it's the most frequently reversed court.

It's all statistics...The Ninth Circuit Court Of appeals is frequently called the most overturned court because of the numbers of cases heard and overturned.  It is by far the largest court in the geographical area it covers including very large population centers.  In a few articles I've read it's very difficult to actually make that statement.  The shear volume of cases they deal with, lead to an increased amount being appealed to the USSC.  Because of that large volume they do have a high total of cases being overturned after the USSC determines they will hear the case.  For cases that the USSC does decide to hear other courts actually have higher percentage cases overturned...it the 2004-2005 session the 1st, 2nd and 10th circuits were overturned 100% of the time on cases the USSC selected to hear.   You can massage the statistics anyway you want but overall it looks that the 9th is usually within 1% of the national average.

[JeffDG]

The Act was invalidated by the 9th.  The Supremes regularly reach 9-0 reversals of the 9th.

IIRC, it's the most frequently reversed court.

It's all statistics...The Ninth Circuit Court Of appeals is frequently called the most overturned court because of the numbers of cases heard and overturned.  It is by far the largest court in the geographical area it covers including very large population centers.  In a few articles I've read it's very difficult to actually make that statement.  The shear volume of cases they deal with, lead to an increased amount being appealed to the USSC.  Because of that large volume they do have a high total of cases being overturned after the USSC determines they will hear the case.  For cases that the USSC does decide to hear other courts actually have higher percentage cases overturned...it the 2004-2005 session the 1st, 2nd and 10th circuits were overturned 100% of the time on cases the USSC selected to hear.   You can massage the statistics anyway you want but overall it looks that the 9th is usually within 1% of the national average.

Cool...good stats, had never thought it through that way.

[ThatOneGuy]

I agree it's time for the gov to start cracking down. This guy will deserve whatever punishment he gets. He is exactly like the other guy on the news a couple days ago, said he served in the Army and did something heroic in Vietnam and got the MoH and he was discovered to be a fraud. Glad something is finally being done about these occurences...  :clap:

[Major Lord]

The Ninth Circuit Court is overturned on Constitutional issues so often, because the vast majority of its members subscribe to the "living, breathing" school of thought ( i.e., they can make the laws by fiat and remove those other pesky branches from the loop) There is not one strict constructionist among them. It would be nice if we could take the Justices and divide them up amongst other circuit courts. Even when they get a case right, its mostly by accident.

Major Lord

[NIN]

The Act got thrown out by the ninth Circuit Court of appeals as unconstitutional because it violated the plaintiff's right to free Speech.  It can't be made against the law unless the government had a legitimate compelling need to restrict it.  The analogy was made that lying about your height or weight is still lying but like the Stolen Valor Act that the Government doesn't have a compelling need to restrict.  There was no tangible fraud in this case so it was dismissed.

That being said I think wearing awards for Valor that you did not earn is wrong and completely disrespectful of those who have.

While I agree that its distasteful that people represent themselves as something they're not (believe you me, I like nothing better than to expose a fraud as just that), I tend to believe that the Stolen Valor Act is not the way to go about it.

I heard that same thing on NPR this morning: That it basically attempts to regulate lying where there is no actual fraud involved, kind of like lying about your weight on Match.com.  I thought that was a pretty apt analogy.

If a guy lies about military service to obtain a job, obtain benefits not otherwise owed, or otherwise defrauds someone based on that status, then yeah, they need to be responsible for their actions and said fraud. 

If I claim I made $150,000 a year at my last job, and my prospective employer doesn't bother to check, hey, awesome.  But if I make a sworn statement attesting to my educational status for a federal job application (don't know if thats something you make a sworn statement about, but go with it..) and I'm later found out to be full of it, well, at the very least I should lose that job, and there probably should be a penalty for fraud.

But if I tell some hot girl at the bar that I flew that plane like Tom Cruise, am I guilty of being a gigantic d-bag, or am I a felon?

[PHall]

The Stolen Valor Act's problem is that it was written poorly and enforced selectively.
Being struck down by the USSC isn't the end for a law, it just shows where improvements need to be made.

[RiverAux]

The Stolen Valor Act's problem is that it was written poorly and enforced selectively.
Being struck down by the USSC isn't the end for a law, it just shows where improvements need to be made.

I would think that would depend on exactly how they go about doing it, whether on general principles or on technicalities that could be fixed by Congress. 

[JeffDG]

But if I tell some hot girl at the bar that I flew that plane like Tom Cruise, am I guilty of being a gigantic d-bag, or am I a felon?

Depends on if you left the bar alone or not.   Then on how old the hot girl is...

[SARDOC]

The Stolen Valor Act's problem is that it was written poorly and enforced selectively.
Being struck down by the USSC isn't the end for a law, it just shows where improvements need to be made.

I would think that would depend on exactly how they go about doing it, whether on general principles or on technicalities that could be fixed by Congress.

Agreed.  The Law even if they completely retooled the law...the underlying intent or "spirit of the Law" is still the same and that seems to be what was thrown out.

[Thrashed]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Sorry, I think freedom of speech comes before some liar with a medal. Americans have a right to lie. Lets not make more laws or lose more freedom. We don't need this law, we just need vets with baseball bats to re-educate the individuals. Seriously, all you need to do is "out" these people and disgrace them. They will get what they deserve in the end.

[NCRblues]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Sorry, I think freedom of speech comes before some liar with a medal. Americans have a right to lie. Lets not make more laws or lose more freedom. We don't need this law, we just need vets with baseball bats to re-educate the individuals. Seriously, all you need to do is "out" these people and disgrace them. They will get what they deserve in the end.

Uh huh....ya.. And the those "vets with baseball bats" get charged with "assault with a deadly weapon"... that's definitely the way to go (sarcasm warning)

[FlyTiger77]

This case was argued yesterday before the Supreme Court. News accounts seem to imply that the Court sounded as if it were leaning toward upholding the law.

It was sort of funny that the defense attorney didn't try very hard not to throw his client under the bus. (The defense seemed to be: "Yes, my client is a bald-faced liar, but lying is protected by the Constitution.")

We will know in a few months what the law of the land will be.

I have been going back and forth on what I think about this and I think I come down very slightly on the "Free Speech" side.

[Major Lord]

How do you think SCOTUS would rule if the case concerned persons falsely representing themselves as lawyers, versus MOH recipients? My suggestion is that we create a law that allows Military Court's Martial original jurisdiction in cases of military false personation or awards. Let them face the UCMJ. Failing that, we could send them to Iran to face a Sharia Court......

Major Lord