Stolen Valor New Wrinkle

[JoeTomasone]

I am both saddened by and agree with the judge.

[Gunner C]

He can still be prosecuted under the Federal Blanket Party Act.   

Is carrying LEO credentials or wearing LE uniforms with badges now legal by the same theory?   

(Sent to me) Some history on this case:
As of January 2010, a legal challenge concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act is underway in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Rick Strandlof founded an organization called Colorado Veterans Alliance, and is accused of posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War to obtain funds for his organization.

Strandlof's attorney believes the law is too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny." The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment," the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."

And it just occurred to me, what does the fraudulent wearing of medals have to do with political speech.  It is political  and religious speech that is protected by the First Amendment, not "pure speech". 

And how about laws that proscribe the wearing of uniforms of the military and their auxiliaries?  Is that out the door, too?

[Smithsonia]

Gunner;
Acts of Fraud: For instance - raising money in the guise of a man of valor, that will be put to personal use is still a prosecutable
offense. Pretending to be some one you are not, is not. Of course the Police will be concerned that those that have a red light and siren and use those items to detain pretty girls for a phony conversation about traffic safety will be included in this broad ban. However, that is still prosecutable too as unlawful detainment. It will be a little messy until the legal system digests this new ruling.

My little neighborhood watch group is worried about detainment of taggers for instance. I don't see this a cause for concern. But it did come up as we collected in the neighborhood with our coffee cups this morning.

I would say this is now a matter to sort out.

[Hawk200]

Seems like this judge simply advocates that lying is acceptable. Nobody has to actually earn decorations, it's OK to just claim you have them.

[Gunner C]

There are some who say that Rule 303 should be used in these cases.  I'm not sure that I disagree.   

[lordmonar]

He can still be prosecuted under the Federal Blanket Party Act.   

Is carrying LEO credentials or wearing LE uniforms with badges now legal by the same theory?   

No...because the government can good cause to make that sort of behavior illegal.

(Sent to me) Some history on this case:
As of January 2010, a legal challenge concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act is underway in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Rick Strandlof founded an organization called Colorado Veterans Alliance, and is accused of posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War to obtain funds for his organization.

Strandlof's attorney believes the law is too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny." The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment," the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."

And it just occurred to me, what does the fraudulent wearing of medals have to do with political speech.  It is political  and religious speech that is protected by the First Amendment, not "pure speech". 

And how about laws that proscribe the wearing of uniforms of the military and their auxiliaries?  Is that out the door, too?

Again....wearing the uniform is still illegal because the government can show good cause to restrict that sort of "speech".

The judge just disagreed with the government's argument that the "reputation" of veterans and medal winners was not a sufficent reason to restict people's freedom of speech....even if that speech was a lie.

[Gunner C]

He can still be prosecuted under the Federal Blanket Party Act.   

Is carrying LEO credentials or wearing LE uniforms with badges now legal by the same theory?   

No...because the government can good cause to make that sort of behavior illegal.

(Sent to me) Some history on this case:
As of January 2010, a legal challenge concerning the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act is underway in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Rick Strandlof founded an organization called Colorado Veterans Alliance, and is accused of posing as Marine Captain "Rick Duncan" and claiming to have received a Silver Star and Purple Heart in the Iraq War to obtain funds for his organization.

Strandlof's attorney believes the law is too vague and that "protecting the reputation of military decorations is insufficient to survive this exacting scrutiny." The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group, joined in the case on January 20, 2010. "Such expression remains within the presumptive protection afforded pure speech by the First Amendment," the Institute's attorney wrote. "As such, the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of speech."

And it just occurred to me, what does the fraudulent wearing of medals have to do with political speech.  It is political  and religious speech that is protected by the First Amendment, not "pure speech". 

And how about laws that proscribe the wearing of uniforms of the military and their auxiliaries?  Is that out the door, too?

Again....wearing the uniform is still illegal because the government can show good cause to restrict that sort of "speech".

The judge just disagreed with the government's argument that the "reputation" of veterans and medal winners was not a sufficent reason to restict people's freedom of speech....even if that speech was a lie.

• It is not speech, it is behavior, just as you correctly stated above.  Wearing a policeman's uniform with badge isn't speech.  It is behavior that puts a trusted symbol into question.
• The government has sufficient reason to restrict that behavior - just as in counterfeiting, the government has an overwhelming interest to insure that its symbols, currency, and awards for bravery and gallantry are not misused.

I'm afraid that the government no longer cares about duty, sacrifice, (and most of all) honor.  It is the very thing that the founders hung their lives on when they signed the Declaration of Independence.  We have a society that says "I can do what I want, when I want, and how I want."  There are no consequences to deeds whether they be good or bad.  All is the same.  There are no heroes, no villains.  No penalty for broken laws, no rewards for sacrifice.

As Kipling wrote:

"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"

We are not yet a fallen nation, but we may be heading that way.

[lordmonar]

• It is not speech, it is behavior, just as you correctly stated above.  Wearing a policeman's uniform with badge isn't speech.  It is behavior that puts a trusted symbol into question.
• The government has sufficient reason to restrict that behavior - just as in counterfeiting, the government has an overwhelming interest to insure that its symbols, currency, and awards for bravery and gallantry are not misused.

"Speech" has a very broad definition with the court.

So the government can show just cause that they need to protect the "symbol" that the policeman's uniform represents.

The court just does not see that the government does not have the same compelling need to protect the reputation and symbol of the status of "veteran" or "Medal winner".

The first amendment makes it the government's burden to prove to the court that they have a valid need to restrict speech (speech is a behavior BTW).

I'm afraid that the government no longer cares about duty, sacrifice, (and most of all) honor.

It is kind of hard to brush with such a broad brush...the government that passed the law, and the government that enforced the law are the same government that struck down the law.

I for one would rather have a government that protected my freedom of speech the one that protected the value of my veteran status.

It is the very thing that the founders hung their lives on when they signed the Declaration of Independence.  We have a society that says "I can do what I want, when I want, and how I want."  There are no consequences to deeds whether they be good or bad.  All is the same.  There are no heroes, no villains.  No penalty for broken laws, no rewards for sacrifice.

Again...I disagree both with your generalization and how the founding fathers may have reacted.

Again there is nothing that says there is no consequences....only that the government must show damages.   Joe Blow says he was a vet or a MOH just to give himself creditability and pump up his ego....who gets hurt?  It makes him a DICK but not a criminal.  If Mr Blow....lies and defrauds someone one...then they can sue or he can go to jail for fraud.....not for lying about his MOH.

As Kipling wrote:

"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"

We are not yet a fallen nation, but we may be heading that way.

Again...I think you are taking things out of proportion.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

One measure that might help things is that the places selling mil-spec awards, like Medals of America (and I'm not trying to jerk their chain, because they're nice people and I've got very good service on the things I've ordered from them - which aren't medals by the way!) require proof of award by competent military authority before they will sell the medal/ribbon/other bling.  No paperwork (DD214, NGB22 etc) from DoD, state Military Department, or DoT/DHS for the Coast Guard, no medal.

Yes, I'm aware that paperwork can be forged and that it wouldn't solve the problem entirely...but it might be a bit of a deterrent.

What would be a bigger deterrent would be the knowledge that conduct has consequences...I'm not advocating anything, but, to give an example, I know that if I would order a reproduction Victoria Cross and go to Canada with it pinned on my jacket (which I wouldn't), and walk into a Royal Canadian Legion hall, the chances are very good I will get a well-deserved attitude reorientation very quickly.

[Gunner C]

You'd get a lot more than an "attitude adjustment".  From the Canadian Veterans Page:

Can I wear my father's (brother's, relatives') medals?

Medals may only be worn by the veteran. It is a criminal offense to wear military medals that someone else has earned.

[Short Field]

I can't get excited about this until the Supreme Court rules on it.  I hope they agree the Stolen Valor Law is constitutional.  If they don't, then it is time to add a new amendment to the constitution.

[Major Lord]

I can't get excited about this until the Supreme Court rules on it.  I hope they agree the Stolen Valor Law is constitutional.  If they don't, then it is time to add a new amendment to the constitution.

Yes, because Congress has been just so swell on respecting those other amendments.......

Major Lord

[Short Field]

I can't get excited about this until the Supreme Court rules on it.  I hope they agree the Stolen Valor Law is constitutional.  If they don't, then it is time to add a new amendment to the constitution.

Yes, because Congress has been just so swell on respecting those other amendments.......
Major Lord

So moaning and groaning is going to pressure the judiciary to change their ruling?  You might not like it, but the one thing that separates the United States from most lessor countries is that we have an Independent Judiciary.  We also have a mechanism to change our laws and our Constitution when needed that does not involve firearms.  I devoted my adult life to defending the system we have now (with all its warts and blemishes) so I am content to let the system work. 

[Major Lord]

As a tactic, it appears that moaning and groaning is a pretty sound way of getting around that pesky Constitution that is just so irksome to all the branches of Government these days. I am sworn to the Constitution, not the "system". As to firearms and the rule of law, remember how we got that freedom from tyranny? It involved lots and lots of guns. Tom Jefferson and a few of his pals knew we needed that final gateway against a runaway Government.

As for the matter of the Congress enacting an Amendment to prohibit the wearing of the Uniform, or false claims of military service or awards, I shouldn't hold my breath; the military is not much beloved by the Congress, who see it primarily as a drain of funds that could be better utilized for social programs. The unauthorized wear of uniforms and medals is still a crime, and people get arrested for it all the time. (In fact, spies can get shot for it....) absent a profit motive, it is solely the words involved in making the claim that are "protected rights". So is flag burning, or burning a cross (on your own lawn). The outrage of the populous, and the implied threat of the loss of office to our glorious leaders, is some motivation for "The system" to shape up, or suffer the consequence wrought by the total rejection of the Social Contract. The Constitution is written in language so clear, that only a lawyer can misunderstand it!

Major Lord

[lordmonar]

They can't make an amendment to protect the flag from burners.....no way they are going to protect veteran/hero status.

As an aside.....is the Constitution not the system?  I mean that is basically all that is in the the consition.  So how is it possible to be sworn to one and not the other?

[O-Rex]

That's such a crock!

Since when do we have to be sensitive to the needs of others and allow absolute wannabees to fulfull their 'needs' while cheapening the honor of those who served and sacrificed?

Military Awards, now coming to a Wal-Mart near you: just look in the aisle where M & M's are sold.....

[Smithsonia]

O-rex and others;
I agree with the lack of satisfaction this judgment brings. However, provided that all of our other liberties are protected by our first amendment rights (Free Speech and Free Press) I can only suggest that you use that right to speak your mind but realize it comes with
a downside. It protects the disrespectful, the hate mongers, pornographers, and the idiots too.

I am for all that free speech offers and will take the bad, with complaint - for that is also my right.

Congress will not touch this decision and neither will the Supreme Court. That said, it will be a thing that we can use the best of our words to always defend those in the military - the best of our kind, with the greatest sacrifices as we acknowledge their deeds.

For the disparate wannabee, at least he can never run for Congress, get a military commission, or likely even get a good job, with this on his record. For pointing him out and slathering him in spite is protected speech.

[Short Field]

Military Awards, now coming to a Wal-Mart near you: just look in the aisle where M & M's are sold.....

I don't find them at Wal-Mart but I do see them for sell at all the traveling gun shows that pass through town.

[Short Field]

I am sworn to the Constitution, not the "system". As to firearms and the rule of law, remember how we got that freedom from tyranny? It involved lots and lots of guns. Tom Jefferson and a few of his pals knew we needed that final gateway against a runaway Government.

What you call the "system" is spelled out in the Constitution.

Article I - The Legislative Branch  Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article II - The Executive Branch  Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. ....
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...
Article III - The Judicial Branch  Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

You can't pick and choose what parts you want to defend.

[Major Lord]

The Supreme Court found Slavery to be A-Okay with the Constitution. The Supreme Court thought kidnapping American citizens of Japanese ancestry was just okey-dokey. The Federal Government has had no qualms about conducting medical experiments against its citizens, especially its soldiers, without their knowledge or consent. The State Authorities went door-to-door to seize private firearms, with the tacit approval of the Federal Government, during Hurricane Katrina.  Its not the framework of the Constitution I have a problem with: its the unauthorized, unconstitutional, and even evil group of "systems" that have sprung from the police power of the state without regard to Constitutional authority. We have no moral or legal obligation to support an unconstitutional "system". Your (darn) right I pick and choose!

Major Lord