Senate Passes Stolen Valor Act 2013 unanimously
TSO tells us that the Senate passed the 2013 version of the Stolen Valor Act, less than a year after the original was struck down by the US Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment guarantees to free speech. There are no links yet, so I guess we’ll have to go on his word. Meanwhile, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) praises the Senate for it’s passage of the bill by unanimous consent;
“Our nation can never fully express our gratitude for all that our men and women in uniform have experienced on our behalf. Their acts of valor helped ensure the safety and security of our nation, and the honor of their awards should never be compromised. I would like to thank my good friend and fellow Nevadan, Congressman Joe Heck, for his leadership in the House on this issue and look forward to the bill moving to President Obama for signature,” said Senator Dean Heller.
The bill passed on Monday in the House and now heads to the White House before it becomes the law of the land. They passed the text of the House’s version which reads thusly;
SEC. 2. FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT RECEIPT OF MILITARY DECORATIONS OR MEDALS.
(a) In General- Section 704 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in subsection (a), by striking `wears,’; and
(2) so that subsection (b) reads as follows:
`(b) Fraudulent Representations About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals- Whoever, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal described in subsection (c)(2) or (d) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.’.
(b) Addition of Certain Other Medals- Section 704(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by striking `If a decoration’ and inserting the following:
`(1) IN GENERAL- If a decoration’;
(2) by inserting `a combat badge,’ after `1129 of title 10,’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(2) COMBAT BADGE DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `combat badge’ means a Combat Infantryman’s Badge, Combat Action Badge, Combat Medical Badge, Combat Action Ribbon, or Combat Action Medal.’.
(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 704 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in each of subsections (c)(1) and (d) by striking `or (b)’.
Here’s a link to 18 USC 704 as it currently exists for your edification.
Category: Stolen Valor Act
About time, Whoot Whoot! We’ll see how long these last. :/
Ok … Jonn, Hondo, TSO and all who contribute here:
Looks like we have marching orders!
I notice that they call it the “Congressional Medal of Honor.” I was under the impression that the inclusion of “Congressional” was incorrect.
So a certain senator from Connecticut voted for legislation that criminalizes his own behavior?
What amendments were offered to buy his vote?
Once it’s signed and in effect it will be up to every Federal prosecutor to act or not to act on this. Those who engage in SV should be very concerned, since even those who claim to have misrepresented themselves for a good cause (e.g., charity) are in the crosshairs. There is no condition that requires that the money, for instance, be for the valor thief’s personal use. Clearly, if so much as a dime of it is, even for reimbursement for speaking somewhere, or for a ‘free’ meal, the defendant will have to make his case that such was not his intent. But intent is usually inferred from the facts. Rare does a criminal say, “It is my intent to commit crime X.” Yes, the valor thieves had better be concerned. Very concerned.
Ok, excuse me for being a little on the dumb side, but does that mean only the medals listed or if they wear any at all?
I’m so very glad this passed though. It’s good to know that someone cares for all y’all go through.
@6. First, a wearing is not required. That language was stricken and replaced with “holds onself out to be a recipient.” Second the listed medals and awards are for enhanced punishment. The law applies to “…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.”
More on Sen Heck’s site: http://heck.house.gov/press-release/hecks-stolen-valor-act-clears-senate
*Rep Heck
AMAZING!!!!! Good work guys!!!!
Any want to bet against obummer signs the SVA with a photo op on Memorial Day. Joe
Does that mean we can bitch slap the hell out of proven posers?
@11 – Not taking that bet, no way. If the Liar in Chief signs, the signature will most likely be accompanied by a self serving speech.
His speech would start and end with: “I, I, I, I….Me, Me, Me, Me…” and somewhere, he’d have to throw in, “You didn’t build it”.
@11 – Nope, not taking that bet either, I’m sure our glorious Commander in chief will spin this to make it seem like his idea all along………………….
I’m curious as to why it didn’t pass with a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives. I’ve been checking the web pages of the three chuckleheads [Justin Amash (R-MI), Paul Broun (R-GA), and Thomas Massie (R-KY)] who voted “Nay” on it on the 20th, but haven’t yet seen/heard any explanation(s) behind their reasoning. Anybody here from those states who might know?
And what is to keep the Supremes from striking this one down like they did the first?
@11 Maybe it will be raining and El Presidente can offer some other branch of service the opportunity to “look good standing next to him” while holding umbrellas.
I’m sure “Hardcore” Blumenthal will be in attendance…
@17. That is extremely unlikely b/c this version cured the defect in the original. The first version didn’t stand b/c it prohibited and punished speech, albeit false speech. This version connects the false speech to the “intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit.”
Hmm, I wonder if they can still burn Monkeyass under THIS if the 0bamatollah signs it into law?
#17 PN: technically, there is nothing from permitting the courts from striking part(s) or all of it. Just a matter of finding the right judge. As written, this new law allows lawyers to rape the public treasury defending assclowns. More money for lawyers…
@21. That may be wholly unnecessary, depending upon what, if anything, becomes of the gov’t set-aside contracts.
Can’t imagine his not signing it, but I withhold any joy until it actually becomes law. He has done so many unimaginable things so far that nothing would surprise me. After all, this supports the honor of veterans, those who have earned accolades, while punishing liars and slackers.
@24
I withhold any joy until it actually becomes law.
Yah. As I tell the people I work with “ain’t nothin’ nothin’ till it happens”, especially when it comes to our somewhat shaky leadership.