 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:37 am Post subject: "American Valor" |
 |
|
While not taking issue with the USSC's decision striking down "The Stolen Valor Act", the NY Sun (may it one day return) ponders what might be evidenced in the rather remarkable contemporary numbers of fraudulent "heroes"....
| Quote: | American Valor
Editorial of The New York Sun | June 28, 2012
The thing that gets us about the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Alvarez — the ruling in which it declared unconstitutional the federal law known as the Stolen Valor Act — is not the question of whether the law is or is not a violation of the First Amendment. The court majority suggests that it is, because it outlaws speech that might be described merely as boastful and, in any event, that Congress mayn’t abridge. The minority, comprising Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, says, in a dissent, that it isn’t. Rather it’s just about protecting our country’s system of military honors.
Either way, the thing that gets us about this case is what the court describes as the “epidemic” false claims that has sprung up in the current war. It involves an astonishing number of wannabe heroes. Justice Alito, writing for the dissenters, reports that an “investigation of the 333 people listed in the online edition of Who’s Who as having received a top military award revealed that fully a third of the claims could not be substantiated.” He adds that when the Library of Congress “compiled oral histories for its Veterans History Project, 24 of the 49 individuals who identified themselves as Medal of Honor recipients had not actually received that award.”
It may be that it was always thus, but those of us of a certain age can remember Vietnam. That’s when our GIs came home to polite indifference or open hostility. Why has this contretemps erupted? Is it because the liars and frauds desire an insult to our heroes? Hmmmm. We don’t gainsay Justice Alito’s point when he writes that the “lies proscribed by the Stolen Valor Act tend to debase the distinctive honor of military awards.” But our own instinct is that’s the effect more than the intent. It seems that America is in a surge of admiration for its heroes.
That would be only underscored by the phenomenon that some of the false claims of valor are animated by a desire for financial, employment, or social advantage. That seems to be involved in a number of the cases cited by the Supreme Court. All the sharper is the point that nags us about this case. What a change has been wrought since Vietnam. The court’s decision to protect false claims under the shield of the First Amendment will only throw into sharper relieve that we are suddenly in a moment when our nation’s heroes are unambiguously those GIs who have proven to be prepared to put themselves in harm’s way and who, when they got there, disclosed the un-alloyed coin of American valor.
The New York Sun |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TEWSPilot
Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1235
Location: Kansas (Transplanted Texan)
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well put.
I, like millions of others still scratching our heads at several unbelievable SCOTUS decisions this session, fail to follow the logic of the majority in that lying about one's service in order to steal benefits set aside for veterans who, BY LAW, must earn them, is protected. Isn't that called "theft by fraud" in the civilian court system that sends civilian fraudsters to prison?
Speaking of other SCOTUS decisions this term that defy logic and certainly defy even a cursory reading of the U.S. Constitution, the decision concerning "Obamacare" in particular.....
We are ALL Dred Scott now.
This is Dred Scott II, we are now the "property" of the federal government because it can ORDER us to purchase anything it wants against our will or "tax" us if we refuse.
"No thanks, I don't wish to purchase that pack of gum".
"No problem, the tax on that refusal will be $2.49".
John Roberts will become the most hated man in American history over the coming decades if Obamacare isn’t repealed. He may be the most hated man in America right now.
_________________
Find the perfect babysitter, petsitter, or tutor -- today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
One of the more common expressions I am hearing is wondering why Chief Justice Roberts could not and did not stretch his decision on Stolen Valor as he did the Affordable Care Act.
How can anybody not see that stealing the Valor of others, making false claims to advance a career or draw praise to one's self they are not entitled to is stealing something of value worth far more than just money?
Amazing, impersonating a congressman or federal judge is punishable by law still, but impersonating a hero isn't.
_________________
Clark County Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TEWSPilot
Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1235
Location: Kansas (Transplanted Texan)
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Read 'em and weep....Roberts was more concerned about what the Lib media would write about him than he was about doing his job...sickening...Does his striking down the "Stolen Valor" law make it legal for us to impersonate Supreme Court Justices....if we wear CLOWN SUITS?
| Quote: | The Media Broke John Roberts and Saved ObamaCare
If John Roberts had been more influenced by the Constitution than The New York Times, all 2700 pages of ObamaCare would be in the trash where they belong. But the media's onslaught broke Justice Robert's resolve.
We can't let this happen again.
Forbe's Avik Roy has a great roundup on this story.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/
Here's the original CBS story, citing high level Supreme Court Sources.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/
Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld. — CBS's Jan Crawford |
_________________
Find the perfect babysitter, petsitter, or tutor -- today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
