A welcome decision by the Supreme Court
July 29, 2019 at 12:37 p.m.
There was something off-putting about it from the beginning. Perhaps it was the name itself.
“This act may be cited as the ‘Stolen Valor Act of 2005,’” Congress said at the beginning of the bill.
The act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a decision handed down at the end of the term late last month.
Predictable outrage ensued.
Yes, it is maddening and should be addressed but not by law.
It was one of those pieces of legislation inspired more by emotion than logic, a reaction to behavior more offensive than illegal.
The first question is, how can valor – a part of character, not material – be stolen? This was not identity theft.
Valor is the state of mind or spirit that enables a person to encounter danger with firmness. It is personal bravery. The Stolen Valor Act made it a federal crime for a person to falsely state he or she received a medal, with the crime punishable by a fine and six months in prison.
The ruling came in a case involving Xavier Alvarez, a former local elected official who, at a 2007 water board meeting in Southern California, falsely claimed he served as a Marine and received the Medal of Honor.
Alvarez appealed his conviction for violating the Stolen Valor Act. Lower courts found no compelling reason for government interest in banning such lies. Laws prohibiting unauthorized wearing of a military uniform or medals already exist. There are laws dealing with fraud that make it illegal to make false representation for the purpose of gain.
A person with such low self-esteem who needs ego-boosting by “telling a whopper” is more to be pitied than punished. It hardly diminishes the honor due to true heroes. No man with any self-respect would think of making a false heroism claim.
But with secularism making values, beliefs and standards a thing of the past, the feeling becomes “there oughta be a law,” as the old cartoon said.
The decision is welcome at a time when there is great concern about religious freedom.
The Department of Health and Human Services took it upon itself to define a religious organization as one that meets four criteria -- “has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and is a nonprofit organization.”
What mischief would occur if any government agency could use that same definition for purposes other than mandating health insurance coverage? The right of churches to grant sanctuary comes to mind as an example.
Stay tuned.
Kent, now retired, was editor of archdiocesan newspapers in Omaha and Seattle. He can be contacted at: [email protected].
[[In-content Ad]]Related Stories
Thursday, December 18, 2025
E-Editions
Events
There was something off-putting about it from the beginning. Perhaps it was the name itself.
“This act may be cited as the ‘Stolen Valor Act of 2005,’” Congress said at the beginning of the bill.
The act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a decision handed down at the end of the term late last month.
Predictable outrage ensued.
Yes, it is maddening and should be addressed but not by law.
It was one of those pieces of legislation inspired more by emotion than logic, a reaction to behavior more offensive than illegal.
The first question is, how can valor – a part of character, not material – be stolen? This was not identity theft.
Valor is the state of mind or spirit that enables a person to encounter danger with firmness. It is personal bravery. The Stolen Valor Act made it a federal crime for a person to falsely state he or she received a medal, with the crime punishable by a fine and six months in prison.
The ruling came in a case involving Xavier Alvarez, a former local elected official who, at a 2007 water board meeting in Southern California, falsely claimed he served as a Marine and received the Medal of Honor.
Alvarez appealed his conviction for violating the Stolen Valor Act. Lower courts found no compelling reason for government interest in banning such lies. Laws prohibiting unauthorized wearing of a military uniform or medals already exist. There are laws dealing with fraud that make it illegal to make false representation for the purpose of gain.
A person with such low self-esteem who needs ego-boosting by “telling a whopper” is more to be pitied than punished. It hardly diminishes the honor due to true heroes. No man with any self-respect would think of making a false heroism claim.
But with secularism making values, beliefs and standards a thing of the past, the feeling becomes “there oughta be a law,” as the old cartoon said.
The decision is welcome at a time when there is great concern about religious freedom.
The Department of Health and Human Services took it upon itself to define a religious organization as one that meets four criteria -- “has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and is a nonprofit organization.”
What mischief would occur if any government agency could use that same definition for purposes other than mandating health insurance coverage? The right of churches to grant sanctuary comes to mind as an example.
Stay tuned.
Kent, now retired, was editor of archdiocesan newspapers in Omaha and Seattle. He can be contacted at: [email protected].
[[In-content Ad]]