The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: JakeStyle on June 28, 2012, 11:07:48 AM
-
>In addition to its landmark ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court dealt with two other cases today—affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision striking down the Stolen Valor Act in one, and dismissing First American Financial v. Edwards without issuing a decision, thus leaving the Ninth Circuit’s decision intact.
In United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210, a highly anticipated First Amendment case, the Court held six to three that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704, makes it a federal crime to lie about having received a military decoration or medal, punishable by up to a year in prison if the offense involved the military’s highest honors. The key issue in this case is whether knowingly false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud – are a protected form of speech, and if so, what level of protection they deserve.
Justice Kennedy announced a plurality opinion – joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor – and concluding that the Stolen Valor Act infringes on protected speech. The plurality reasoned that, with only narrow exceptions, content-based restrictions on speech face strict scrutiny, and are therefore almost always unconstitutional. False statements of fact do not fall within one of these exceptions, and so the Stolen Valor Act can survive strict scrutiny only if it is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. The Court concluded that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional because the Government had not shown that the statute is necessary to protect the integrity of the system of military honors – the interest the Government had identified in support of the Act...<
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-holds-stolen-valor-act-unconstitutional-dismisses-first-american-financial-v-edwards/
-
They can't get a damn thing right this week, can they?
-
I guess all we can do is to make it so socially unacceptable, that should a person do this, he gets no elected office, he survives no job background check, he is considered a cad and a scoundrel (forgive the old fashioned language), and he gets no dates and no friends. We know what is right and wrong in our hearts, and no court can change that.
-
They can't get a damn thing right this week, can they?
This to me is a bigger kick in the balls than the ruling on the ACA.
-
I kinda of figured that the court would rule this way.
I was hoping otherwise though.
-
I kinda of figured that the court would rule this way.
I was hoping otherwise though.
Yep - Roberts is in for a penny, in for a pound.
****sticks -- every damned one of them.
-
So I wonder if it's against the law when you catch one of those sissy posers and stomp a mudhole in him & then walk it dry. For all my brethren in all military services this is a sad time. :banghead: :censored:
-
So I wonder if it's against the law when you catch one of those sissy posers and stomp a mudhole in him & then walk it dry. For all my brethren in all military services this is a sad time. :banghead: :censored:
Just claim it's your way of expressing yourself and is therefore protected by the first amendment.
Hey, if killing unborn babies is a form of free expression and confurred and protected by the first amendment then a little "stomp ass" ought to be covered.
-
Don't take this as I am being anti-First Amendment. I think the First Amendment is going to far and being abused. Of the amendments, I think it is the most abused amendment.
-
Don't take this as I am being anti-First Amendment. I think the First Amendment is going to far and being abused. Of the amendments, I think it is the most abused amendment.
The First Amendment, by definition, has no limits except when words cause actual harm. I don't take the antics of these posers as an insult, they are beneath contempt. If they use their fake medals to con people out of money or to insinuate themselves into positions, there are laws to punish them.
-
So if the SC strikes down laws that 0bama doesn't like then it is fine and dandy, but if they were to strike down laws that he does like it would border on treason. :mental:
-
This ruling pisses me off so bad I'm thinking of looking at other countries to live in. Between this and O'bamacare.
KC
-
This to me is a bigger kick in the balls than the ruling on the ACA.
Yeah, the trolls are out in force at This Ain't Hell.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/s480x480/206158_466463740047848_2011710641_n.jpg)
So does that now mean I can exercise my freedom of speech rights and kick this guys ass?
-
I thought Ballduster McSoulpatch was dead...
-
I always thought the "Simpson Plan" on flag burning was the perfect solution to both problems. Sen. Simpson proposed a federal law imposing a $5 fine on any citizen who beats the crap out of a flag burner. I think this would be a fine solution for the "poser" problem too.