Stolen Valor Act struck down as unconsitutional

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

are you now entitled to that gain as it wasn't asked for, but offered?

Obviously this is going to vary from state to state, but I'm under the impression that's still fraud by deception. I've already said here that if congress wants to try again and make a law that specifically targets people who reap personal gain through fraudulent claims about ones purported military service than that's probably closer to a commercial speech issue and would stand a better chance of passing a constitutional test. But if the law includes lines like simply "falsely represent[ing] himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress" can get six months in prison...there is no way in hades that's not going to get burned up in a court. Whoever thought this law was in any way close to be constitutionally sound should have read the majority opinion of Cohen v Cali and slowed their roll a little. With the amount of JDs in our congress this kind of stuff is mind blowing to me.

Rank is gained, Rank including NCO is confirmed by congress . . . Impersonating an officer is not illegal?

What if the claim led to people voting for that sad individual that lied about it? What if he/she is elected under the pretense of false military rank or award?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[scruffy 0]

Quote

Rank is gained, Rank including NCO is confirmed by congress . . . Impersonating an officer is not illegal?

I already went through that in a post above, at least following the Georgia statues the law is pretty clear about its purpose to keep people who are not police officers from acting like police officers for the reasons I described in my earlier post. Military folk are not law enforcement and not a judicial symbol of authority so the compelling interest in keeping people from acting as such isn't there as far as I'm concerned.

Quote

What if the claim led to people voting for that sad individual that lied about it? What if he/she is elected under the pretense of false military rank or award?

As someone so astutely pointed out earlier, if lying was a crime Washington would be one empty joint. There is actually a case here in Georgia about a county commissioner who lied about getting a ranger tab, degrees, etc to get elected, got found out, and will no longer be a county commissioner following December. People lie, a lot, I just still don't see a reason that claiming military awards has any constitutional precedent to be any more illegal than his other lies about getting degrees or any other lofty claim.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Rank is gained, Rank including NCO is confirmed by congress . . . Impersonating an officer is not illegal?

I already went through that in a post above, at least following the Georgia statues the law is pretty clear about its purpose to keep people who are not police officers from acting like police officers for the reasons I described in my earlier post. Military folk are not law enforcement and not a judicial symbol of authority so the compelling interest in keeping people from acting as such isn't there as far as I'm concerned.

Quote

What if the claim led to people voting for that sad individual that lied about it? What if he/she is elected under the pretense of false military rank or award?

As someone so astutely pointed out earlier, if lying was a crime Washington would be one empty joint. There is actually a case here in Georgia about a county commissioner who lied about getting a ranger tab, degrees, etc to get elected, got found out, and will no longer be a county commissioner following December. People lie, a lot, I just still don't see a reason that claiming military awards has any constitutional precedent to be any more illegal than his other lies about getting degrees or any other lofty claim.

Well, for instance, the situation you cite above . . . how much money did his lies cost? How much time and money doers it take to do a switch over for a commissioner? Doesn't the waste make it criminal?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[scruffy 0]

Quote

Well, for instance, the situation you cite above . . . how much money did his lies cost? How much time and money doers it take to do a switch over for a commissioner? Doesn't the waste make it criminal?

Well the issue why is that specific lie any more fit to be judicially sanctioned than any other lie a politician uses to get into office. It sounds well and good, but the problem is in actually having to write a law that isn't so vague it's completely unenforceable...like the stolen valor act was.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[BIGUN 1,425]

What part of this is vague and unenforceable?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000704----000-.html

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 3,080]

>What if the claim led to people voting for that sad individual that lied
>about it? What if he/she is elected under the pretense of false military rank
>or award?

I would imagine the same thing that would happen if he or she were elected under the pretense of any other lie.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

What part of this is vague and unenforceable?

Vagueness is not really the focus of the law being ruled unconstitutional. It's because the law essentially criminalizes lying. I agree with the majority of the 2-1 panel of judges.

The courts are not the place to fight this further. The place to fight this further is in Congress: re-write the law (or write a new law) that properly draws a direct relation between the false statement (or wearing of decorations, etc.) and an attempt to fraudulently obtain something of value thereby. I'll betcha that a properly-drafted law would eventually be upheld. Just gotta do the leg-work.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

What part of this is vague and unenforceable?

Vagueness is not the basis of the law being ruled unconstitutional.

Without being a lawyer, I would agree that it is not vague. But it is Scruffy's argument.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[scruffy 0]

it's vague in the sense it's throwing simply wearing half an army navy store down the street in lots with lying about your service records to fuck over the VA. There may be a good law in there somewhere, but the legislature cannot just buckshot it and hope for the best, especially when a bill of rights issue comes up. In order for a law to pass the strict scruitinty of a constitutional challenge it has to address a clear, legally traceable injury that has enough compelling interest to the government to supercede somene's right to free speech and then narrow the scope to only sanction that particular action. At least that's my understanding.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[BIGUN 1,425]

Quote

false statement (or wearing of decorations, etc.) and an attempt to fraudulently obtain something of value thereby.

Gotchya. I don't like it, but I understand.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.