Skip to content

Why Liberals will never understand Conservatives

October 2, 2010

A law against falsely claiming you earned a medal from the military was struck down as being unconstitutional.  All I can say to this is, was there any question this law is a violation of the First Amendment?  Now the liberal out there I am sure thinks all the right-wing extremist wackos feel this is a slap in the face of the military.  What the left-wing extremist wackos don’t understand is we believe in the Constitution, even if it goes against our emotional inclinations.

What does that mean?  Emotionally, I think anyone who lies about earning medals is a complete scumbag.  But I have principles.  And those principles dictate you have a right in this country to lie about stuff without being sent to jail for it.  This is the same reason I think that crazy church has the right to protest soldier’s funerals.  Do I think that church is freaking insane?  Hell yes!  But just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I think you should legally be refused the right to be a moron.

Liberals feel the exact opposite.  They are the first to claim first amendment protection (usually in regards to perverts looking at porn in libraries) until they run into speech they don’t like, then it is the Fairness Doctrine.  To these people, the Constitution is only worth quoting when it suits their argument (interesting how they do it with the bible too) but at any other time they just throw it out the window.

Listen up liberals.  Conservatives (true conservatives, not Republicans) have principles.  Its those principles that allow libertarians to support drug usage, prostitution and yes, scumbags who lie about earning medals in the military.  I don’t agree personally with any of those things, but I fully support your right to do them because its your body, the government has no right nor reason to get involved.

Feds Try to Save Law Punishing Military Phonies |

4 Comments leave one →
  1. JustFacts permalink
    October 2, 2010 3:43 pm

    Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. You do not have the right to lie on applications for insurance, or for driver’s licenses, or law liceses, etc. The “law” requires you to be honest about such things, or you pay a fine or serve time in prison, depending on the level of dishonesty, or attempt to defraud. So, you are saying that a law that makes it illegal to lie about your military record is less constitutional than one preventing you from lieing on your insurance application? Or, are you saying that is unconstitutional, as well? Can the government write laws that require you to be truthful?

  2. October 2, 2010 5:11 pm

    Actually, you can lie on an insurance application, you just leave yourself open to losing coverage by doing so (people misrepresent themselves all day long on contracts). But getting to your actual point…

    What I am saying is that, according to your examples, you can’t lie about anything in those situations, so why single out individual items like someone’s military record? If the law renders illegal, false statements made on a specific document, I don’t see the point in having to spell out what it is illegal to lie about – isn’t everything illegal to lie about on said document?

    My point, which I did not make very well apparently, is that the government should not be protecting “specific speech”. Military record, sexual orientation, hate speech; these are all instances in which the government has elevated certain speech over other speech. The First Amendment makes no distinction about what speech is protected for one very good reason, who determines what speech is most important? That is too much power for the government to hold. Insert huge slippery slope argument here.

    • JustFacts permalink
      October 3, 2010 7:24 pm

      I just need a clarification. Are you saying that free speech covers all forms communication, or just saying or writing something. The last time I looked, it was illegal for the non-military to wear an official US unifrom. This applies to former military, too, except in very special and ennumerated cases. So, are you saying that it is OK for a civilian, who never served, to represent themselves as a member of the military, by wear a uniform? According to rulings by the US Supreme Court, actions can be construed as speech. In another instance, is perjury just an example of free speech? Sometimes there have to be laws to maintan an ordered society.

      To use your example, don’t the people who are burying their dead also have a right to do so without interference by some insane people (sorry “individuals with an intellectual disability”). I’m not arguing that these people don’t have a right to express their opinion. They just don’t have the right to audibly disturb someone’s private mourning for their loved one.

      Or look at it another way. If I pay to go listen to a particular speaker (liberal or conservative, it doesn’t matter). Don’t I have an expected right to be allowed to actually hear that speaker speak without being drowned out by some protester. Isn’t this the same as going to a Broadway play and having someone stand up in the row behind you and start quoting the Gettysburg Address? I would expect them to be arrested for public disturbance, not protected by the First Amendment.

      Free speech is one of our basic rights, and I believe in it strongly, but sometimes an ordered society has to set limits. Like yelling “fire” in a theater or “bomb” on a plane in mid-Atlantic.

      • October 3, 2010 7:59 pm

        I will go in reverse order. On private property, the expectation of total freedom of speech is illegitimate, as are other rights under the Constitution, like gun rights and the freedom to assemble. A private location is fully able to restrict these rights. So in that regard, the cemetery protesters actually don’t have the right to protest if it is a private cemetery, assuming the owners of the cemetery wish to restrict that right. If I recall, those people usually are required to protest on public grounds outside the cemeteries. Same as a broadway play, the dude reciting the Gettysburg address should not be formally charged, unless he refuses the legal expulsion off the premises by the proprietor of said playhouse.

        As far as wearing a military uniform. That has always been a stupid law in my opinion. Let me explain, you can wear a military uniform that is so correct (only one thing has to be wrong for you to not be in violation) that most people would not be able to tell the difference including me who served in the military. So it is a law with no teeth. As far as the right for the government to restrict that freedom of expression, I can’t think of a legal justification, but I am no constitutional scholar.

        As far as perjury is concerned, I think that goes back to the original point. The government has the right to restrict speech (expression whatever) in general all encompassing cases, perjury being a great example, what they do not have is the right to do so in an arbitrary manner. For example they can’t say it is not ok to lie under oath (forgive the double negative), unless you are questioned about your sexual orientation, or vice-versa.

        I guess the real lesson in all this is, the real reason we have judges is because the constitution is a framework, not well crafted legalese about what the government can and can not do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: