Law against posing as a war hero is unconstitutional, Colorado judge rules

Washington Post / AP ^ | July 17, 2010

[Former Military Chick]

A law that makes it illegal to lie about being a war hero is unconstitutional because it violates free speech, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed a case against Rick Glen Strandlof, who claimed he was an ex-Marine who was wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and the Silver Star. The military had no record that Strandlof had ever served, and he was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have won a military medal.

Blackburn ruled that the government did not show it has a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement.

[Hoodat]

Are laws against posing as a lawyer or judge also deemed unconstitutional?

[P-Marlowe]

It's not about constitutional authority, it's about common sense.

LOL!

The law was unconstitutional. It may have made perfect sense, but just because a law makes sense does not mean that Congress has the authority to pass it. "Health care for all" makes perfect sense.

Making people eat their vegetables makes perfect sense.

But just because a law makes sense does not mean that it is not prohibited by the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law....."

What does that phrase mean to you?

[P-Marlowe]

We have many such laws today and they have stood Constitutional scrutiny. Such a law can be crafted that does not tread on the 1st Amendment.

That is one of the biggest problems that we face in this country. We have a whole lot of laws. We have so many laws on the books that they probably would fill the halls of the Library of Congress. Every day Congress passes another 1000 pages of new laws that nobody has read and nobody understands.

ENOUGH!

[sirchtruth]

Under what Constitutional authority is property protected? Under what Constitutional authority can we proscribe fraudulent representations that provide tangible and intangible benefits to the perpetrator?

We have many such laws today and they have stood Constitutional scrutiny. Such a law can be crafted that does not tread on the 1st Amendment.

Man, you said that so much better than I could have ever thought of saying it!

[Humble Servant]

Jesus wept.

[centurion316]

I don’t disagree with your point, but just because you think that there are too many laws out there, and that many (especially federal) laws are extra Constitutional doesn’t mean that the Federal Government can’t protect its own decorations.

These decorations were created by a law that governs their award. The devices themselves are government property and are issued to the recipients. Its hard to argue that the government has no right to protect its own property on behalf of its own citizens. The government’s right to protect its currency, even when the misuse of that currency has no criminal intent comes to mind.

This law needs to be expunged and a new one installed that protects these decorations. There are lots of other laws out there that violate the 9th, 10th and other Amendments that deserve your attention and passion.

[P-Marlowe]

These decorations were created by a law that governs their award. The devices themselves are government property and are issued to the recipients. Its hard to argue that the government has no right to protect its own property on behalf of its own citizens. The government’s right to protect its currency, even when the misuse of that currency has no criminal intent comes to mind.

As far as the decorations are concerned, Congress could protect them by declaring an ownership interest in the medals themselves. But I do believe that this would only apply to medals that are issued after the institution of the law. I don't think they could constitutionally declare an ownership interest in medals that have already been given out unless that ownership interest was intended at the time the medals were created or distributed.

As far as prohibiting someone from "claiming" to have earned a medal that he not only did not earn, but does not possess, can you think of a good argument that this would not be a violation of the first amendment?

Making social lying a federal crime is not wise or constitutional. If we can make it a federal crime to brag, then can we not also make it a federal crime to tell your wife that she doesn't look fat in that dress? Where does it end?

[centurion316]

Now we are making progress. The government has been, at times, rather cavalier about these decorations, but can and should assert its ownership interests going forward and should protect them.

Your second point is acknowledged, hence the fatal flaw in the current law.

The third point is essential. A public database of award recipients will empower us all with the information need to expose these poseurs to ridicule and destruction of their reputations. They are doing this for the attention that they gain, public exposure will take away the incentive.

[mainsail that]

“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, unless there is a fire. The issue is fraud. The Government does have a compelling interest in preventing fraud. (Or at least a good government does)”

What fraud? People lie about their jobs, money, women, this and that. If they use the lie to scam someone then charge them with fraud.

Yelling fire causes deaths and inconveniences an entire town, from moviegoers to the fire department.

[patriot preacher]

Hmmm....So, fraud is legal? Why not? As long as you’re impersonating a Soldier? They mean NOTHING, after all — right “Judge?”

Cretin. Moron. Can SOMEONE PLEASE FIRE THIS JUDGE?!

[Siena Dreaming]

We're talking about common sense here not the constitutionally of lying.

Common sense dictates that you shouldn't allow the Government to be able to prosecute just for lying.

There's a whole lot of people in prison down in Cuba for such offenses.

Who should decide what is truth and when you are not allowed to "transgress it"? Obama? Barney Frank?

Sheesh. If lying were prosecuted the creator of Candid Camera would have gone to jail for 50 years.

If you say, "well, let's prosecute people who lie about military service" then the other side will say "OK...since you opened the door to prosecuting just for lying let's prosecute people who lie about environmentalism, abortion, racism" etc.

[P-Marlowe]

Now we are making progress. The government has been, at times, rather cavalier about these decorations, but can and should assert its ownership interests going forward and should protect them.

Does it actually HAVE an ownership interest? I don't know. If so then Congress could prohibit the display of these medals by anyone other than the recipient.

But I don't know that they have an ownership interest after the medal has been given.

I believe, however, that this law prohibits someone from "claiming" to own one of these medals. I cannot conceive of a way of this law passing constitutional muster. If so, then the government could prohibit someone from telling someone at a social gathering that they had $100,000 in the bank when they didn't. After all, the government has an "ownership" interest in currency, don't they?

FWIW I think we have too many laws. We need to concentrate on repealing a few before we pass any more.

[Almondjoy]

Ahh yes the conflicted issues of the moral God fearing conservative.

Abortion is a crime(would like) but lying isn’t.

Homosexuality should be against the law(sodomy) but adultry isn’t.

Of course personally we should serve God but the government should serve the constituion.

But we all believe different things about the constitution do we not?

Did the founders really feel that free speech entitled you to say fire in a crowded theatre or to yell at a bicylcist on the side of a road hoping they will dive into traffic?

Wasn’t free speech suppose to allow you to challenge your governement? I would argue that was the true intention of it. It certainly wasn’t to allow porn, but, there it is.

The constituion said that we were suppose to apply the law equally to all men.. yet we had slavery.. even for those born here. The constitution had always been changing to the will of man.. not the will of God.

Ask yourself... why isn’t Adultry illegal? Is it because the constitution forbids it or because God forbids it? What part of the constitution says that adultery cannot be illegal but sodomy can be(or could be for only about 200 years)?

Why is it ok for abortion to be illegal but lying cannot?

And so the condondrum of the Christian conservative(constitutionalist) lives on.

[devere]

“Since Richard Nixon wasn’t sworn in as President until Jan.20th 1969 his timing was also off on “President” Nixon sending him on that 1968 “mission”.”

Correct. Kerry confused the Tet celebration in February 1969 with Christmas in December 1968.

[Siena Dreaming]

that this law prohibits someone from "claiming" to own one of these medals

That's my take too. There's no mention of this guy acutally wearing or showing any medal to anyone He just said he was a recipient.

Beats me how people can really think this should be prosecuted by the Federal Gov't.

If what you say is true...that this law was written by the Dem who authored the "Disclose" bill...that tells the entire story IMO.

[xzins]

If we start down this road here by outlawing speech that we as conservatives find offensive,

In sum, the man presented himself as something he is not.

Can you present yourself as a police officer and flash your badge when you are not? Is that illegal?

If so, then why? Serious question. Why would that scenario be illegal?

[Political Junkie Too]

I would also add that if the person were an officer, or falsely claimed to be an officer, then that makes it an entirely different Constitutional question.

Article II Section 2 Clause 2 says the following:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

We just recently saw the firing of General McCrystal, and the confirmation of the appointment of General Petraeus to replace him, even though General Petraeus had been confirmed to higher positions before.

If a person claims to be a military officer and he is not, then he is in contempt of Congress because he was never confirmed by the Senate, or he was never appointed by the Executive via the delegation of confirmation power to the Executive of inferior officers.

So how can this not be Constitutional when it steps all over Constitutional powers?

-PJ

[P-Marlowe]

Can you present yourself as a police officer and flash your badge when you are not? Is that illegal?

It all depends. This particular law did not require the wearing of the medals to make it a crime. In this law all you had to do was to claim that you were a medal recipient and you were guilty of a criminal offense.

If the Congress can make bragging illegal, they can make just about any speech that offends someone illegal.

If Homosexuals are offended by people calling them sinners, then can congress make it an offense to call someone a sinner? What if Congress were to state that homosexuality is NOT a sin. Could congress then prosecute anyone who claimed that homosexuality is a sin as a liar?

Xzins, we are all tempted to be tyrants and to outlaw behavior that we don't condone. Liberals have no qualms about that.

Our founders put the first amendment in place not to grant people rights, but to prohibit congress from infringing upon those rights. People have a right to be boorish and to claim they are things they are not. Congress has no right to infringe upon that right unless it robs my pocket or breaks my leg.

Lying about your accomplishments in social environments may be despicable, but it is perfectly legal. I can claim to be a police officer in a social situation and it is not a crime. It only becomes a crime when it interferes with legitimate police business, or the intent is to make someone else act as if I were acting under color of authority.

Remember in Seinfeld when George Castanza pretended to be an architect? Should that kind of behavior be made a crime? Or even worse, should it be made a FEDERAL crime?

Congress does not have the authority to pass this law. Maybe congress could prohibit the wearing of an actual medal for the purpose of deceiving the public as to your prior military status, but clearly Congress has no power to prohibit some boor from bragging that he earned a medal that he never earned. That is a bridge too far.

[Just mythoughts]

PING - For those who believe in the rule of law and Valor that Congress had said could not be stolen.

Wasn't it some 'supreme' judgment that decided to remove the ultimate law from the public square.... The Ten Commandments... of which one of those commandments is Thou shall not bear false witness... Course we do have many Christians claiming they are no longer under the law.

I (not a lawyer) see nothing in the 'free speech' clause regarding any sitting judge using said clause to erase the ultimate law of NOT bearing false witness. I have read many that are willing to dilute the meaning of bearing FALSE witness claiming it 'free speech'. But then again this nation in the majority elected a liar, and thus far the majority in this nation appear to still swoon every time they are told lies...

[xzins]

It only becomes a crime when it interferes with legitimate police business, or the intent is to make someone else act as if I were acting under color of authority.

In other words, when a con is taking place, it is illegal. I think we've already agreed on that. And, yes, WEARING an unearned medal could easily be criminalized, and I think it is already.

However, misleading people by claiming to be a police officer should also be illegal depending on one's intent.

Should I be permitted, as after the Vietnam War, to claim to be a Viet Vet and lead the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, if I never was in Vietnam at all? This is a real case and it had real political impact to include false testimony presented to Congress, rallies that affected political races and led to riots, and opportunity for the media to mislead the public about that war.

If I'm attempting AND succeeding at having a political impact, because I'm acting "under the color of authority", is that misrepresentation protected speech?