Originally Posted by
zombietooth
Perhaps you are missing my point.
The Supreme Court ruled only on the narrow interpretation of the mens rea exclusions for the specific intent and materiality elements. They found that mens rea was not necessary to be in violation of the law. They did not rule on the constitutionality of the law itself. The dissenting justices pointed-out the potential unconstitutionality of the law in their opinions.
The article's assertion of unconstitutionality is structural; i.e. how can any law that effectively removes the mens rea protections be constitutional.
We both know that discussing that further in detail here won't do much of anything with regard to the discussion of the Dao incident here. I have no doubt that various of the actors involved on UA's side against Dao haven't been all that complete and accurate in their statements. I include UA employees in that.