Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which made it a crime to falsely claim that one was a war hero, received medals, etc.
I disagree with President Obama when he defended the law. I, of course, hate those who lie about their military service. However:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I cannot find who voted in the majority. No doubt Justice Scalia did, since the original intent of the this first amendment is clear: congress shall not abridge.
There are other laws which can probably be used to prosecute someone for doing what this person did. At the state and/or local level. And that's probably where the matter should lie. The President should be congratulated for stepping forward in defence of military personnel who have legitimately been awarded these recognitions of superior achievements.
There are other laws which can probably be used to prosecute someone for doing what this person did. At the state and/or local level. And that's probably where the matter should lie. The President should be congratulated for stepping forward in defence of military personnel who have legitimately been awarded these recognitions of superior achievements.
I actually agree. If I were president, I would have defended the law, even though I would suspect it is not constitutional.
What rather set this care apart: the liar at the center of the case was not trying to profit off his lie. I imagine (although I have yet to read the opinion) that since it was 'pure speech', the Court felt it had no choice but to strike down the act.
I cannot find who voted in the majority. No doubt Justice Scalia did, since the original intent of the this first amendment is clear: congress shall not abridge.
Actually, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas were the dissenters.
What does that say to you about Scalia's devotion to the Constitution?
Actually, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas were the dissenters.
What does that say to you about Scalia's devotion to the Constitution?
Jack: do you have a link?
I was actually engaging in subtle sarcasm. Look at the thread about "Justice Scalia should resign". Note that many argued that Justice Scalia's 'original intent' theory is THE only way a justice should read the Constitution.
I argued that he wore the 'original intent' coat when it suited him, but that he had no qualms in discarding it when he needed to vote another way.
Hence: I was actually pretty sure he would have dissented, since he does not really believe in his own legal philosophy. My respect for his views would have increased if he voted to strike down this act, on the basis that the original intent of the Framers was 'congress shall not abridge' the freedom of speech, even lying speech.
That's how they reported it on Scotusblog. I'm confident that they're right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
