The Courts are an endless source of issues upon which conservatives can run. Case in point: a judge in Colorado has just ruled that the “Stolen Valor” legislation, that criminalized posing as a war hero, is unconstitutional. Jules Crittenden has some fun with that ruling here. BlackFive whacks away here.
Judge Blackburn is a George W. Bush appointee and the law was sponsored by a Colorado Democrat. But the issue is one of judicial hubris and variance with the Constitution that too many in black robes seem to be attached to (regardless of who appointed them). The Denver Post gives a great break down of the views of either side.
In the case, the defendant posed as a decorated veteran of the Iraq war in order to raise funds for a bogus organization. Obviously, he would have more credibility raising money from Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their supporters by promoting this lie. Others do it to improve their political prospects, like gubernatorial candidate Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
The court in Colorado said that the government may not criminalize lying about having honors that the government alone is allowed to grant. This is crazy talk. I am a lawyer. If someone who is not a lawyer holds himself out to be one he can be prosecuted. Now, who is held in higher esteem lawyers or decorated war veterans? This fellow ran a scam based on his lies about being an Iraqi War vet. He was not trying to impress a girl in a bar.
The government criminalizes lying all the time. Fraud is a misstatement of material fact upon which the other party relies. 18 U.S.C. Section 301 is the Government’s favorite statute which makes lying to it a criminal offense. The judge in this case though decided that lying about medals of valor is no big deal and that the government has no “compelling interest” in criminalizing it. This ruling flies in the face of may judicial decisions which held that falsehoods have the least amount of constitutional protection. Consumer protection laws are almost wholly based on lies told by businesses. Does the government have no compelling interest in this? Judge Blackburn has ruled that whether you have a Medal of Honor or not is a matter of such little importance that lying about it causes no harm. One of the worst things contemporary culture has done to soldiers is create an image of combat veterans, particularly from the Vietnam War, as broken, homeless mental cases. This is a complete sham. But fake “veterans” peddling this nonsense have been so common that in Trading Places, Eddie Murphy engages in the scam (hilariously) but is caught by real Vietnam Vets. War veterans suffer from this; it’s not a hazy, unsubstantiated harm.
I note that Judge Blackburn appears to have zero military experience. The importance that members of the military place on the proper use of these symbols of honor is reflected by the fact that officers who are accused of using them improperly sometimes commit suicide. This New York Times article reflects the reality; Judge Blackburn’s ruling rank ignorance.
The government, by long precedent, may criminalize “fighting words”: those taunts or expressions so inflammatory as to almost certainly to lead to violence. Think about a man returned from Iraq and Afghanistan (maybe for the third or fourth time). He has seen comrades blown up from roadside bombs and in nameless firefights in the Kyber hills. His full dress uniform contains indication after indication of battles throughout the Middle East. Up comes a poser wearing medals that he is not entitled to and soliciting funds for a bogus organization based on it. Is this situation not rife with the possibility, maybe even the certainty of violence? This law should have been upheld on that ground alone.
Morale matters. Truth matters. The Constitution is not indifferent to truth and falsehood. A ruling that says otherwise is.
