Stolen Valor Act - Unconstitutional? CO Court Ruling
 

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

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........... :mad: This sucks big time!.........:mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

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!!:mad:

Source

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.

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".

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

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.

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....

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]

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.

Is it a bring your own blanket? :lifter

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

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

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.

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.......