Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional ?

[motorfirebox]

Hi Carl,
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".

That position seems to be extremely problematic, 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.

To me, the Stolen Valor act looks very much like a blatant tug at the heartstrings that conceals a very troubling abrogation of free expression. Does military service gives rise to an intangible property interest that should not be impaired by imposters? Yes, I think it does. However, the ideals that the military is in service to override that intangible property interest. Those ideals include free expression--the right, among other things, to mock things that others believe are important. There are no cows so sacred as to be exempt from that. All else being equal, I don't think people should pretend to have served in the military. But part of why I did serve is that I think the ideals that the United States has built itself on--free expression primary among them--need to be defended.

[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

[AdamG]

Have some slippery slope.

John Giduck; Stolen Valor bully
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=30958