Houston - "Man arrested, accused of stolen valor"

[57Chevy]

Seems to be alot of this going around lately. 

Heres another link.  Hope its not a repost but here.  This individual was caught aswell.

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49635

Kinda looks like this guy

 

[ModlrMike]

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 there was inadequate "compelling governmental interest" when Congress passed the Stolen Valor Act in 2006.

Then the court has it wrong.

The compelling interest is the people's. Ergo, as the constitution proclaims "government by the people, for the people" there is a compelling governmental interest, and the law should stand.

 

[Journeyman]

Then the court has it wrong.

The compelling interest is the people's. Ergo, as the constitution proclaims "government by the people, for the people" there is a compelling governmental interest, and the law should stand.

It makes my day when I read a post where the contributor has thought through his opinion before posting.

Thank you. "Role model" MilPoints inbound.  :nod:

 

[Blackadder1916]

Then the court has it wrong.

The compelling interest is the people's. Ergo, as the constitution proclaims "government by the people, for the people" there is a compelling governmental interest, and the law should stand.

It would be more compelling if you had quoted the Constitution of the United States rather than the Gettysburg Address, which, though one of the finest examples of oratory in history, is not binding on the laws enacted by the United States Congress.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 there was inadequate "compelling governmental interest" when Congress passed the Stolen Valor Act in 2006.

Then the court has it wrong.
The compelling interest is the people's.

It may not be the court that got it wrong but the person who wrote the story.  The decision of the Ninth Circuit is long; with the dissent, it runs to 76 pages.  However, my conclusion is that they didn’t say the government doesn't have a “compelling interest” but rather the act as written does not permit the government to achieve the desired result of that interest without drastically infringing on the existing interpretation of the First Amendment.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/08-50345.pdf  (download as PDF)

[17] The asserted governmental interest at issue in the Act
is to prevent “fraudulent claims” about receipt of military
honors, such claims causing “damage the reputation and
meaning of such decorations and medals.” Stolen Valor Act
of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-437, § 2(1), 120 Stat. at 3266; see
also 151 Cong. Rec. S12684-01, S12688-99 (2005) (statement
of Sen. Conrad). The government argues that the referenced
interest is important to motivating our military. Especially at
a time in which our nation is engaged in the longest war in its
history, Congress certainly has an interest, even a compelling
interest, in preserving the integrity of its system of honoring
our military men and women for their service and, at times,
their sacrifice.

[18] However, the government has not proven here that the
speech restriction is a narrowly tailored means of achieving
that noble interest. In Brown v. Hartlage, the Supreme Court
explained, . . .



[20] In sum, honoring and motivating our troops are doubtless
important governmental interests, but we fail to see how
the Act is necessary to achieving either aim. Accordingly, we
hold that the Act is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling
governmental interest. As presently drafted, the Act is
facially invalid under the First Amendment, and was unconstitutionally
applied to make a criminal out of a man who was
proven to be nothing more than a liar, without more.15

We have no doubt that society would be better off if Alvarez
would stop spreading worthless, ridiculous, and offensive
untruths. But, given our historical skepticism of permitting the
government to police the line between truth and falsity, and
between valuable speech and drivel, we presumptively protect
all speech, including false statements, in order that clearly
protected speech may flower in the shelter of the First
Amendment. The government has not rebutted that presumption
here because the Act is not sufficiently analogous to traditional
permissible restrictions on false speech.

CONCLUSION
In order to advance Congress’s praiseworthy efforts to stop
fraudulent claims about having received Congressionally
authorized military honors, the government would have us
extend inapposite case law to create an unprecedented exception
to First Amendment guarantees. We decline to follow
such a course, and hold that the Act lacks the elements that
would make it analogous to the other restrictions on false
speech previously held to be proscribable without constitutional
problem. Accordingly, we hold that the Act is not narrowly
drawn to achieve a compelling governmental interest,
and is unconstitutional.

REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the district court
for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

[Journeyman]

OK Blackadder, OK.....I'll give you some MilPoints too  ;D

 

[ModlrMike]

It would be more compelling if you had quoted the Constitution of the United States rather than the Gettysburg Address, which, though one of the finest examples of oratory in history, is not binding on the laws enacted by the United States Congress.

D'oh. Notwithstanding, my argument still has merit.

That's what I get for posting after a long nightshift.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It likely wouldn't have made it to court except the Walt it refers to is in lockdown and able to spend taxpayer dollars fighting whatever legal battle he wishes at no cost or infringement to himself.

 

[CARPE_DIEM]

I was playing playstation 3 online the other day and was talking to a current member of 2 CDO...I thought they were disbanded after Somalia. But no...according to said game player that's just what the gov't WANTS us to think. I'm no expert (I start BMQ on saturday) but there are alot of people out there claiming to be Afghanistan war vets, 19 year old x Airborne and so  on. Is there a stolen valor law or something like it in Canada?

 

[57Chevy]

Is there a stolen valor law or something like it in Canada?

Yes there is.......commonly known as the Criminal Code

(Section 419 of the criminal code of Canada)
Unlawful use of military uniforms or certificates

419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,
(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,
(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or
(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 377.