I just went back to refresh my memory. Looks like you should have, too.
So what’s your basis for asserting that this law violates the Constitution? Unless the Predsident has appointed you to a federal bench somewhere, I don’t see why we would take your interpretation as the right one, and the actual Congress of the United States and an actual federal district judge’s as the wrong ones.
I recognize what the Stolen Valor law IS, that it was passed by Congress, and that it has been upheld by a federal court.
But this does not preclude an argument that the law itself still violates the principles of freedom of expression enunciated in the Constitution, and the general ideals of free speech that Americans usually claim to hold dear. I believe that it does, and while i recognize that Congress and the federal courts are the ones who determine the law, i am still at liberty (i assume, although with robby around, you never know) to disagree with their judgment on this issue, from a basic standpoint of what i believe constitutes an appropriate level of freedom of expression. [snip]
I’m not arguing that Congress didn’t make the law. I’m not arguing that the federal court didn’t uphold the law’s Constitutionality. Hell, i’m not even arguing that most Americans don’t support the law; for all i know, they do. I’m simply arguing that the law violates my understanding of what the basic principle of freedom of expression is, or should be, about. If there’s no actual fraud involved (in the sense of actual material gain by deception), i don’t think wearing medals should be illegal, and that doing it should, on principle, be protected as freedom of expression.
So if I search on your username, I won’t find you ever, anywhere, arguing that a law passed by Congress or a decision by a federal court is in any way bad, or violates the Constitution?
You may safely say, “the ideals of the Constitution should protect this conduct” and be on solid ground. But when you (or anyone) claims that the actual Constitution means X, then we move from a nebulous discussion about what should be to a more defined and rigorous discussion of what is .
The Supreme Court can indeed say that the Supreme Court was wrong, because they have the ability to overturn their prior decisions; to impose a new meaning of the Constitution on the country as a whole. The Fifth Circuit can say what it likes about Fifth Circuit opinions, as long as there’s no Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. Those are functional statements, in which the meaning of the Constitution is actually changed or clarified.
But when we discuss what the Constitution means here, we have some choices. We can proclaim, as though pronouncing some deep religious conviction, that the Constitution means X, despite the utter absence of any supporting caselaw, and indeed despite the presence of contravening caselaw. That’s fine. I’ll even allow it can be in GD, which is, after all, the place for witnessing.
But witnessing is all it is. It’s more correct, precise, and meaningful to argue that the Constitution SHOULD mean X; you at once acknowledge that the weight of precedent is against you and make clear that you are arguing for a change, not stating an extant rule. When you declare self-righteously that the Constitution means X without such disclaimers, you’re being either obtuse or disingenuous, your little foray into different voices notwithstanding.
You are simply witnessing: offering your unsupported personal views as fact, and inviting others to join your beliefs based on those facts.
When a case of constitutional first impression comes along, it’s absolutely meaningful to offer opinions about what the constitution means. After the federal courts have spoken, it becomes much less meaningful, and much more appropriate to caveat one’s remarks with a “should” instead of a “does.”
Any other method is simply misstating, for rhetorical effect, the present state of caselaw.
So, what we have here is: (a) you being a pedant; (b) other people pointing out what was meant and what everyone but you understood; and (c) you continuing to be a pedant even after it’s been pointed out. So, no, your stupid little games aren’t “easily defeated [snip] by pointing out that you meant ‘Law X SHOULD BE unconstitutional.’”