re: “compelling state interest.”
If it may please the Court, I would argue that legitimate recognition of those who have often sacrificed so much for their country, and more importantly, for their fellow citizens constitutes “compelling state interest.”
This is especially true in the case of those who were drafted, who did not want to serve, but did so heroically.
“If it may please the Court, I would argue that legitimate recognition of those who have often sacrificed so much for their country, and more importantly, for their fellow citizens constitutes ‘compelling state interest.’”
Sorry, but that wouldn’t meet the court standards for what a “compelling state interest” is. A compelling state interest must be something that is crucial for the operation of the state, not just something that is preferred. Since the state has gotten along well enough for over 200 years without restricting speech in order to pursue that interest, then it cannot be a crucial interest, only a preferred one.
If it is just a preferred interest, then the state cannot justify abridging constitutional protections to pursue it, because protecting constitutional protections is itself one of the crucial interests of the state, so that takes precedence.