Stolen Valor Act - Unconstitutional? CO Court Ruling

[Snaquebite]

July 16, 2010

It appears that this judge has ruled the SVA unconstitutional. I'm not good with the legal text in this order...

http://www.archive.org/download/gov....16339.46.0.pdf

[greenberetTFS]

This is BS,this judge is really BS,it's a slap in the face to those brave men who have earned their Medals for Valor........... This sucks big time!.........

Big Teddy

[J8127]

Something like the SVA could definitly garner enough support for a Constitutional Amendment.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by J8127

Something like the SVA could definitly garner enough support for a Constitutional Amendment.

I don't think it will go that far. I expect an appeal and probably a SCOTUS decision unless some reworded legislation can be passed. Who in Congress would be opposed to it these days?

Don't get me started on Strandloff!!

Source

Published July 16, 2010

| Associated Press


DENVER

A law that makes it illegal to lie about being a war hero is unconstitutional because it violates free speech, a federal judge ruled Friday as he dismissed a case against a Colorado man who claimed he received two military medals.

Rick Glen Strandlof claimed he was an ex-Marine who was wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and Silver Star, but the military had no record he ever served. He was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have won a military medal.

U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed the case and said the law is unconstitutional, ruling the government did not show it has a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Denver said prosecutors are reviewing the decision and haven't decided whether to appeal. The spokesman said that decision would be made by the U.S. Justice Department in Washington and prosecutors in Denver.

Strandlof's lawyer didn't immediately return a call.

The law has also been challenged in California and an a case now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Oh good. The nutty Ninth.

Denver attorney Christopher P. Beall, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the Stolen Valor Act is fatally flawed because it doesn't require prosecutors to show anyone was harmed or defamed by the lie.

"The government position was that any speech that's false is not protected by the First Amendment. That proposition is very dangerous," Beall said.

"It puts the government in a much more powerful position to prosecute people for speaking out on things they believe to be true but turn out not to be true," he said.

Beall said the ACLU was not defending the actions Strandlof is accused of, but took issue with the principle behind the law.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Snaquebite

July 16, 2010

It appears that this judge has ruled the SVA unconstitutional.

Just as a civilian speaking here, this makes me sick!

What a scum-sucking, spineless coward this judge is.

Holly

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by echoes

Just as a civilian speaking here, this makes me sick!

What a scum-sucking, spineless coward this judge is.

Holly

Well, I don't know if he's a bottom feeding invertebrate without courage or not. He was a Bush appointee.
He acted on point of law.
The language of the SVA may need to be tweaked.
I anticipate a final victory.
My cup is always half full.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

Well, I wouldn't go that far. He acted on point of law.
The language may need to be tweaked.
I anticipate a final victory.

Yes, Sir. To clarify, just the thought that posers could not/ would not be busted under the SVA makes me sick!

Thank you Sir,

Holly

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by echoes

Yes, Sir. To clarify, just the thought that posers could not/ would not be busted under the SVA makes me sick!

Thank you Sir,

Holly

Agree. I anticipate a victory in this eventually. Given public and congressional support these days, I believe it will be corrected.
My canteen cup is always half full.

I would suggest new legislation, perhaps titled , "The Blanket Party Act".

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

Agree. I anticipate a victory in this eventually. Given public and congressional support these days, I believe it will be corrected.
My canteen cup is always half full.

I would suggest new legislation, perhaps titled , "The Blanket Party Act".

Agree 100% Sir.

Again, from a civilan standpoint, MHO is the courts really should uphold this Act, as it took a lot of time, effort, and people to get it established, and has been the basis for busting posers who otherwise would get away with claiming the, "blood, sweat, tears, and lives," of those far superior to these dirtbags!

Holly

[Green Light]

Denver attorney Christopher P. Beall, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the Stolen Valor Act is fatally flawed because it doesn't require prosecutors to show anyone was harmed or defamed by the lie.

This is the problem: they're arguing damage, we're arguing right and wrong. The left is telling us that there are no actions that are inherently wrong. In a very real sense, people are harmed - it diminishes the value of the award.

It's inherent value is the standard which is applied for its award to an individual by the government. The awardees have paid a tremendous price, especially the MOH, and this is the government's recognition of that price paid.

When someone wears one of those medals unworthily, it inherently harms all who earned them by definition.

[Snaquebite]

He acted on point of law.
The language of the SVA may need to be tweaked.
I anticipate a final victory.
My cup is always half full.

Bob, you have a point however, this needs attention NOW. Without any kind of push who know's how long that could take. I've begun e-mailing anyone and everyone that can help bring this to light (public attention) and possibly get some type of Congressional reaction. I started with the two sponsors....

The Act was first introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 19, 2005, by Representative John Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado, as H.R. 3352.[2][3] It was introduced into the Senate by Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, on November 10, 2005, as S. 1998.[4][5] The Senate version was passed unanimously on September 7, 2006.[5][6] The Senate version then went to the same House Judiciary Committee that held the House version. The Act briefly stalled, but the House subsequently passed the Senate version, S. 1998, on December 6, 2006.

Some history on this case:
[QUOTE]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."[17] 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."[/QUOTE]

[Penn]

This ruling is the very essence of what we have all sworn to protect and defend with our lives.

What the ruling supports, is the fundamental right of free unrestricted speech, up to and including the destruction of our most cherished symbols. Justice Blackburn questions, as have others, how are we to distinguished what is more important between one representative object and another. Who establishes the value, and who has that right too impose the value on others, without first, negating the very essence of our rights protected by the 1st amendment.

In another thread someone remarked that the idea of being American was a mindset, and that idea is what made us unique. Being an American was a state of beliefs, enshrined in our Constitution as unalienable rights.

Being an American involves a level of consideration for cultural and religious differences that supersedes restriction. Being an American Soldier means swearing an oath of allegiance that supersedes our own prejudices in protecting those differences, even if those who most benefit from that oath, would never swear allegiance to it.

Some time ago, when the issue of burning the flag was causing severe emotional distress for many of us, I none the less, asked my state Senator, a WWII combat vet to vote against establishing the act as criminal for the same reason.

When we watch foreign protesters burn effigies and our National symbol, it disturbs us, not because we fear the loss of those emblems, but because it represents a threat to its representation, our ideals: Words, those which we willing defend and are prepared to die for, are more important that symbolic representations.

In that regard, false witness and false presentation are deeply embedded in our Judeo-Christian heritage, our culture. As such, when those ideals are trespassed upon, by a community or an individual, they are often ostracized and outcast from the very community they so desperately wanted to be a part of. Only in this way, is there any justice, for in any other manner we would contradict our commitment to the ideal of freedom and our core belief syatem.

[Stras]

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

I would suggest new legislation, perhaps titled , "The Blanket Party Act".

Is it a bring your own blanket?

I have a nice bar of soap...... kinda looks like a brick..

This is along the same lines as "that church" that thinks "God loves IEDs" and their First Ammendment rights to preach their ideas.

[J8127]

Originally Posted by Penn

This ruling is the very essence of what we have all sworn to protect and defend with our lives.

What the ruling supports, is the fundamental right of free unrestricted speech, up to and including the destruction of our most cherished symbols. Justice Blackburn questions, as have others, how are we to distinguished what is more important between one representative object and another. Who establishes the value, and who has that right too impose the value on others, without first, negating the very essence of our rights protected by the 1st amendment.

In another thread someone remarked that the idea of being American was a mindset, and that idea is what made us unique. Being an American was a state of beliefs, enshrined in our Constitution as unalienable rights.

Being an American involves a level of consideration for cultural and religious differences that supersedes restriction. Being an American Soldier means swearing an oath of allegiance that supersedes our own prejudices in protecting those differences, even if those who most benefit from that oath, would never swear allegiance to it.

Some time ago, when the issue of burning the flag was causing severe emotional distress for many of us, I none the less, asked my state Senator, a WWII combat vet to vote against establishing the act as criminal for the same reason.

When we watch foreign protesters burn effigies and our National symbol, it disturbs us, not because we fear the loss of those emblems, but because it represents a threat to its representation, our ideals: Words, those which we willing defend and are prepared to die for, are more important that symbolic representations.

In that regard, false witness and false presentation are deeply embedded in our Judeo-Christian heritage, our culture. As such, when those ideals are trespassed upon, by a community or an individual, they are often ostracized and outcast from the very community they so desperately wanted to be a part of. Only in this way, is there any justice, for in any other manner we would contradict our commitment to the ideal of freedom and our core belief syatem.

This, I completely agree. Just because it is offensive or you do not like something, does not mean it should be illegal. We have to fight and protect all of our rights, not just the ones we like. If we believe so strongly that something should or should not be, we have the power to amend our rights.

[SF_BHT]

So where do we stand ref false representation of an LEO, wearing fake uniform, carring fake creds/badges? If you do any of these you are commiting a crime. Are they going to strike this down as a 1st Ammendment right? Not a lawyer but they seam to be like items.......