“Exactly right. You nailed it and my agreement with the assessment.”
And many of us, and Congress, DON’T agree with that assessment. If the Supreme Court struck down the law on the basis that the 1st Amendment is more important than the consequences of stealing valor, then I think it’s a bad judgment decision, and one that should be in the hands of Congress, not the Court, but a technically “legal” decision, nonetheless. If however, the Supreme Court simply ruled that it’s an unconstitutional restriction of free speech, then it’s a horrible decision unsupported by rational thought. And I’d feel that way even if I did agree with your assessment.
Of course, the media is portraying it as the Court simply ruling that it’s an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. But you’d quickly go broke if you always bet on the media’s first take about something.
Still, the more I think about it, should the Court be ruling about the relative merit of a law compared to Constitutional principles? Shouldn’t it only be ruling on whether or not a law is permissible under the Constitution?
Well, there’s no such actual thing as “stealing valor”. Stolen from whom? Those that are legitimately awarded honors for genuine acts of valor are not diminished in any way by some drunk in a bar claiming to be a SEAL with a navy cross. The drunk dishonors himself, and himself only.
Sure, the drunk should be outed and humiliated for making such claims. Rightly so. But it serves no purpose and protects no one to send him to jail for it. Better... hopefully there’s a ~real~ SEAL at the ~other~ end of the bar that can work some better sense into the guy. :-)
—And many of us, and Congress, DON’T agree with that assessment.—
Yes. I understand that. To quote a line from Roadhouse, “Opinions vary.”