I’ve been super busy since returning from leave and decided to get back into the swing of things with a bit of controversy that i’m sure most of my readers will disagree with. So, i’m giving you bottom line up front and then ask that you continue reading. As currently written, I believe that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional! BOOM BABY!! 
With that said, the intention behind it is honorable and I find the people guilty of “violating” the Act dispicable, vile, and some of the lowest forms of life in the country – just under politicians. Now, let me explain. I’ll start with the Constitution itself:
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
The word “abridge” in the Constitution is the legal synonym meaning “deprive of, dispossess of, disseise, divest of, expropriate, limit, restrict, seize, strip, take away, usurp, wrest from”, etc. Therefore, Congress can make “no law” that will restrict “the freedom of speech.” Now, let’s take a look at the actual wording of the Stolen Valor Act.
“Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.’’
The emphasis being mine, this is the part that concerns me as a libertarian and constitutionalist. We have that document for a reason. It is the basis of our legal system and MUST be adhered to – or amended through a constitutional convention. As worded the mere utterance, whether in braggadocio or in fun, that one was awarded a military decoration is punishable. That, by definition, violates the abridgement clause of the 1st Amendment.
I was awarded the Silver Star medal. See that? I just violated the SVA. Even though you and I both know it’s not true, according to the law, I just commited a crime and am subject to prison time and fines as written.
We all know that we can’t have people running around in military and police uniforms. Where I think the SVA needs to be fixed is when citizens use their free speech bragging rights to commit fraud. When someone claims to be the recipient of a military decoration they never received in order to obtain a benefit or material gain is where the law should kick in. But then, the crime falls under fraud charges. Yes, the government will have a more difficult time proving fraud.
As I said before, I’m utterly and profainly disgusted with fake Soldiers (ie: IVAW). They are the scum suckers of the earth and can potentially give troops a bad name. However, I contend that only troops themselves can give troops a bad name. No one marching around in a fake uniform and surplus store medals is degraded what I know I earned. Only I can degrade or defame my accomplishments. I am opposed to this law not out of emotion, but out of legal standing.
I love the intent of the SVA, but I don’t want laws passed on what people think is or is not a good idea. I want laws passed that are for the good of the people AND comply with the Constitution of the United States – the document I’m sworn to uphold.
This all comes from a recent decision by US District Court Judge Robert Blackburn that dismissed a case against veteran imposter Rick Strandlof, also known as Rick Duncan. While Duncan/Strandlof is a putrid loser, I can’t help but agree with Blackburn.
“I acknowledge that there is much irony, to put it gently, in concluding that the core values of our system of governance, which our military men and women serve to defend with their very lives, are here invoked to protect false claims,” Blackburn wrote in his decision. “I have profound faith – a faith that appears to be questioned by the government here – that the reputation, honor, and dignity military decorations embody are not so tenuous or ephemeral as to be erased by the mere utterance of a false claim of entitlement.”
Unfortunately, I disagree with completely dismissing this particular case. Strandlof actually collected money based on his lies – fraud. While he shouldn’t be prosecuted for lying about being a Soldier or recipient of medals, he SHOULD be charged with fraud for misrepresenting himself to basically scam money from people. That is where the law should be focused.
One may argue that we can’t just let these idiots get away with lying about medals and service. I agree! That is why have groups like VAWatchdog.org, This Ain’t Hell, and other milblogs. Public humiliation is usually far worse than any jail time could ever be. Once one of these dirtbags is outed, his future career prospects will be put in jeopardy and his standing in the community will be shot.
This isn’t just an anti-war, moron issue. Just this week, an Army Command Sergeant Major was relieved for similar stolen valor issues. While details haven’t been released as to exactly what he was wearing that he wasn’t entitled to, the fact that he was relieved of his command position speaks volumes. Normally, these issues are small – someone wearing a unit award from a previous assignment and mistakenly thinking they are still authorized to wear it; one too many knots on the Good Conduct Medal; etc. For a CSM to be relieved, something beyond a simple Article 15 and non-judicial punishment happened.
The bottom line is that we can’t go easy on these people, but we need to create laws that are consistent with the supreme law of the land – the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, the Stolen Valor Act is not!
Humiliation is worse than jail and a huge fine? Really? Maybe for a fourteen year old girl forced to wear glasses, not for a sociopath.
CJ, you’ve been wrong on this from the beginning, but until now, I’ve been too polite to tell you. Strandlof not only formed a veterans’ organization he infiltrated other veterans groups with his fakery which now casts a pall over every veterans’ group. And he hid behind his phony fairy tales to do it.
The guy not only bilked people out of money, he made political ads based on his lie for VoteVets (who has yet to own up to their involvement with him). He endorsed candidates who embraced his corrupt message.
He was the main person in charge of helping veterans with their PTSD at Winter Soldier because of his claim of his own bout with PTSD. Facilitated by false claims.
Blackburn legislated from the bench. Congress passed a law and he overturned that law. Blackburn has sparked a new age of fakers – I really don’t like my job so much that the only repercussion for these creeps is the hope that they feel a measure of humiliation. The only people who don’t see that are people who want to be perceived as classic liberal free speech advocates who are enlightened beyond the rest of us.
In this case, I’m a relative neanderthal.
Jonn, which is why he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for fraud. He should face a lifetime in prison. Hell, change the fraud laws to read that it’s a penalty of death to commit fraud using fake military medals and uniforms! I’d be good with that, but not just someone “verbally” lying.
The judge was wrong in dismissing the rest of the case, though I suspect the prosecutor will refile fraud charges that are more likely to be prosecuted. Blackburn was right to rule on the SVA, but not to dismiss the entire case. I think we agree to some extent. Again, false claims to obtain anything is fraud. Just lying to look good or pick up chicks is good business (and protected speech)!
And your position on Jesse McBeth?
Free speech? Harmless exaggeration in pursuit of a higher goal?
Only chargeable if he sought VA benefits?
Without the Stolen Valor Act, he didn’t do anything wrong. I thought that was obvious.
Eagle, Jesse McBeth is a sorry excuse for a human being. His words and actions directly harmed other individuals. His speech was used in a way similar to yelling “fire” in a crowded room. He falsely accused honorable troops of atrocious acts. False official statements are illegal too.
My stance is that had MacBeth merely SAID he was all these things, who cares. However, he used his stories to harm others and bring discredit upon the service. Hope that makes sense. May MacBeth rot in hell AFTER suffering a horrible and painful death.
@Joan Lilyea, rest assured you are not the only neanderthal, on this issue. Since the announcement of the decision, I’ve been livid with anger, not dead livid. Under the \Stolen Valor Act,\ the maximum prison time is 1 year total and/or a fine. Now CJ raises the point about the fraud connection, but this suggests getting something in return with a given value. I would suggest that we step back and look at pre-existing, established law. The objective is to establish a network that meets all of the needs of \The Stolen Valor Act.\ The one thing I would add is a perjury connection. What is the first thing you do when you enter the Military? You take an oath, this is the basis of perjury. You take the training and earn your respect, throughout your time in the Military. For the sake of discussion, you come home and find one of these, counterfeit soldiers, what do we do? CJ, What would you do? Everything he does reflects on you and your service, but the same is true of all of us. This counterfeit soldier needs to see the error of his ways. When one sees the uniform, it suggests that he has taken the oath. Under \The Privacy Act of 1974\, the US Gov’t is required (You Shall) maintain accurate records or be able to correct them. This is especially true when it comes to a benefit and a possible \adverse impact.\ Therefore, we just might have perjury or lying to Federal Law Enforcement.
I find the line between McBeth and Strandlof (using false claims of heroic service in support of a political campaign) pretty thin.
But we have to wait for the higher courts to fumble through this, I suppose.
We who took the oath swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not our honor. By supporting unconstitutional laws we would be dishonoring our service and the sacrifices of all those before us. If we allow SVA (infringement of the 1st Amendment) to stand simply because we don’t want lowlifes to make us look bad then what’s to stop the government from outlawing firearms (infringement of the 2nd Amendment) because we don’t want lowlifes to shoot someone, or quartering soldiers in those Beverly Hills mansions or any house that has an extra room (infringement of the 3rd Amendment) because it would save millions of tax dollars, or putting roadblocks up (infringement of the 4th Amendment) so we can catch drunk drivers, or seizing private property to give it to a private company for their benefit (infringement of the 5th Amendment)…
I’m all for punishing dirtbags that commit fraud, preventing criminals from shooting innocents, saving tax dollars, keeping drunks off the road, and having a nice hotel to stay at when I travel but NOT at the expense of our Liberties by granting government bureaucrats the power to ignore the Constitution! It is easy to follow the crowd but it takes a real leader to stand against the mob and tell them they are wrong.
I’ve got your back on this one CJ.
Learn about the Constitution of the United States: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Pingback: Col. Robert Howard: “The greatest hero America never knew”
While I agree about SVA needing to be clarified, and utilized specifically for cases of defrauding the Government (as that was the main motivation behind hit), I still disagree with the Judges ruling. Blatant lies have never been considered Free Speech, and there has always been consequences for them. Fraud being the most obvious charge.
Sure, let the idiot speak to pick up chicks at the bar, but when the get on TV and act like a real war veteran to raise money for IVAW, political candidates, or people in need; they need to be hammered. Maybe not with SVA, but certainly with some charge of fraud. Free Speech protects acting, it protects his bragging, but it certainly doesn’t protect his fraud.
The other aspect of the SVA is the fact that it clarifies, and makes stronger, US laws that have been in place for over a century preventing people from wearing US Military insignia out of uniform. When you dig into the laws (even if the Libertarian side of the mind doesn’t like them), we’ve had laws on our books that make it a criminal act to put a piece of military insignia (the actual US GI insignia; for example rank pins, battalion crests, whatever is actual uniform wear) on a piece of civilian clothes. I have a 1942 issue of National Geographic that specifically quoted the code in article about US Military heraldry. The only reason we are authorized to wear our medals on our coats now is because DoD encouraged it, and even then we can only wear what we earned.
I’m all for Free Speech, but I also believe in facing the consequences for that Free Speech. If I present myself falsely, I know I could face criminal and civil charges on top of public humiliation. After all, lies have never been protected speech…
CJ, I agree the law needs changed, I agree that the punishment should be maximized, however I think your interpretation of the Constitution is flawed. I mean by your definition then you are saying that the laws which prohibit screaming FIRE in a movie theater or HIJACKING in an airplane are not constitutional.
I believe the authors of the Constitution were not talking about any possible word or phrase that could come out of a person’s mouth. To put it into context, they were talking about freedom of religion, the press and speech, etc. IMHO, they were saying that the people of this country cannot be silenced by a law from speaking their opinion freely.
Saying what you want (I have a silver star) while sitting in a VFW is your business and I don’t think that is considered a crime, you are just considered a lying A-hole. However producing fake certificates, marching in parades, being part of a public recognized group, or attending a Mayor’s party in a uniform you didn’t earn is not a “protected by 1st Amendment” right. It is a crime because you are perpetrating a level of achievement and competence.
You know I love you brother and respect you, but I am not with you on this one.
Oh, Troy, you’re missing my point.
There is a DISTINCTIVE difference between saying “My name is General McChinpubes and I’ve earned every medal for valor out there except the Medal of Honor” and someone yelling fire in a movie theater or hijacking an airplane.
The simple act of claiming valor harms no one. In a court of law, not ONE Soldier can go in and prove that they were harmed – ie: their rights were violated. However, when someone pay for a service (a movie or flight) and someone yells “FIRE” causing the theater to be violated, there is a legitimate harm. Those movie-goers are unable to use the service they paid for. In essence, they’ve been robbed of the experience. Same for a flight. Individuals have a right to travel where they wish, but when a plane is hijacked, they are personally harmed.
The basis of our system of laws is built upon rights and damages. One has to prove damages in order for a “crime” to have been committed. This is the same defense that actually gets me out of all my tickets. When I get pulled over for speeding, who’s rights have been violated and whom and have I harmed. I demand that the court produce an injured party to be tried in a criminal court. They cannot and the ticket is tossed. Now, if my speeding caused someone to run off the road or I rear-ended a driver in front of me, there is a legitimate claim to injury and/or damages and I have just committed a “crime”.
Did I ever mention I studied law for three years before dropping out in disgust of the profession?
CJ,
As per your posting, “Therefore, Congress can make “no law” that will restrict “the freedom of speech.” and with no clarification in the law that says the words “except in case of violating someone’s rights”.
The way you wrote your posting and as per your definition as I read it, then it is a all or nothing scenario. It reminds me of the movie “Meet the Fockers” when Stiller is trying to cram his bag in the overhead and says “it is not like I have a bomb on board” and then gets in the argument about him saying the word which of course causes to get arrested.
The bottom line is that since the Constitution was written, Congress has put into place additional laws that clarify and define more of what is and isn’t allowed under the 1st Amendment (i.e. not saying FIRE in a theater). SVA is just one of those laws, plain and simple.
BTW, I have flown a lot of planes on the Xbox but that don’t make me no pilot.
IMHO, a guy wearing a cop uniform or an EMT uniform is perpetuating as much of a lie and misnomer as a person wearing a military uniform in public with medals of valor on it. I mean what you do in your house dressed up as a cop is one thing, but out in public is something different.
IF McChinPubes wants to dress up as a General and make his boyfriend drop and give him 20, that is his business. But when he goes out in Public then it is everyone elses’s business.
Not true, Troy. Your rights cease to exist if they in exercising them they violate someone else’s. You cannot use a right a violate someone else’s. No laws need to be created to protect that. It’s what we in the military would call “implied law”. There’s nothing “all or nothing” about it. Laws haven’t been created to prevent someone saying FIRE in a theater, but judges have informed the public and made judgments based on the fact I just iterated.
SVA doesn’t clarify anything. It usurps the constitution that defines what the laws CAN say.
“You cannot use a right a violate someone else’s.”
The answer is simple then, isn’t it – if earning a medal has some value, then to claim one without having earned it is to have stolen something of value.
Obviously Congress (the body that authorized those medals in the first place) holds the “has value” view. They passed SVA, which was supported by multiple veterans groups (to include the Medal of Honor Society) that are representative of recipients of those medals. The President signed that into law that another Federal District Judge has determined to be constitutional.
Without stating so, you argue the “has no value” side. Or perhaps that the value of a “right to lie” (Troy is correct, this would be a new right under the Constitution, overthrowing previous Supreme Court decisions that lies enjoy no protection – something that could be the outcome of this case) exceeds any value attached to earning a medal.
What about a Vietnam combat veteran who was denied membership in the R.I. Combat Veteran Motorcycle association? A Gulf War Combat Veteran was thrown out of the R.I. CVMA. A Vietnam Combat veteran was stripped of a BOD position in the R.I. CVMA. All this happened in less than a year and all earned a Combat Badge (CIB) The state rep and his comrade in arms who headed this lynch mob were both desk jockeys in Iraq but wear a patch that claims they are combat veterans. If one is approved by the desk jockey power seeking state rep in the R.I. CVMA, all one needs is a DD 214 stating one served in a war zone, 20 bucks dues, and ride a bike over 500cc’s. Thats it, get the State Reps approval and one can wear a patch claiming they are combat veterans. http://www.cvma23-1.org/images/cvma_patch.jpg
The people who have served in a combat unit and taken part in combat has payed the price and I think anyone who claims they are a combat veteran and are not that are stealing valor that does not belong to them. Plus the fact of judging real combat veterans who rightfully deserve to be called combat veterans by those who have no clue to what combat is all about, is totally wrong. How do these people get away with this BS?
I am from R.I. and know exactly what you are implying with the combat vet motorcycle club of R.I. I see some of these people with their vest on at the VAMC a lot. They wear all kinds of patches and pins on their uniform but do not see many combat badges. One member had a combat badge on his vest which I know personally is very hard to get and is not even twenty years old. I asked him when did he earn that badge, he ignored me at first but I was persistant. He finally said Vietnam. I told him the badge was not around in Vietnam. He finaly said his son earned it. I told him he was stealing valor by wearing it, he walked away quickly. I then seen him in a St. Patricks day parade and he still was wearing this insignia. Where do these people get off portraying something they are not? Time to spread the word amongst certified veteran organizations and around the VAMC about these people and show all what they exactly are.
Note: Rhodey most certainly means “VA” (Veteran Administration) and not “VAMC” (VA Mortgage Center.com) in his comment.
(As a side note, VA Mortgage Center.com is occasionally called “VA Mortgage” by some, either by mistake or as to shorten the name. Either way we are officially called VA Mortgage Center.com and we are NOT affiliated with any government agencies, including the VA.)
The individual in photogrph is an enlisted WWII veteran wearing an officer’s jacket. His hat has an Air Force Cadet pin. His left sleeve reveals the AAF patch and AA in a Circle Anti-Aircraft Command. Must have been busy since assigned to the 275th Infantry Regiment, 70th Infantry Division. He was a POW beginning January 8, 1945.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v191/Robersabel/Monroe/?action=view¤t=Monroe.jpg
Robert