Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional ?

[jmm99]

I don't see the "position" you are attacking - presumably based on the quoted material ? - but I don't see it there.

This argument:

... since taken to its logical conclusion it would invalidate the judicial branch altogether. The courts exist as a check on the power of "the people", for the specific reason that "the people" can very easily become a tyranny of the majority. Or even a tyranny of the minority, if the minority has enough money and/or influence.

is extremely superficial; and not fairly based on anything I've written here or elsewhere.

Moreover, I don't appreciate having my statements cherry-picked. Here is what I said in full:

That brings us to another point - which ties into our discussion about "rule of law" and "rule by law". The Stolen Valor Act was enacted according to our usual constitutional process. So, as close as we can get, it was a statute ordained and established by the People; and thus, a "rule of law".

Once it was enacted, a minority special interest group headed into the Federal courts to set it aside. Same for the Marine Burial Case.

Since the Federal courts are not elected, finding the People in that process is more difficult. In fact, that process appears more "rule by law" than "rule of law".

We tolerate that judicial process because it adds another set of checks and balances to our constitutional equation - and because it used to occur but rarely until my lifetime. That is just another intangible to think about.

I'll stand by that statement - as written.

Regards

Mike