We’re back to the basic elements of human psychology.
We do thing hoping for reward. Civil War reenactors have their own set of self-defined rewards, but they are not based on fraud, which the wearing of unearned medals is. No one with a well trimmed white beard and dress greys hopes anyone thinks he is Robert E. Lee.
Wearers of unearned medals hope viewers will really think they are valorous veterans, and they hope for a reward from that lie.
yes, it is fraud, but there are numerous types of fraud enumerated and described under the law. Some are more serious than others. For example, uttering a worthless check for $5000 is a more serious crime than a worthless check for $5. Fraud against a senior citizen is a more serious charge than simple fraud, etc.
This law simple defined a fraud under the law, which the America and military-hating San Francisco-based 9th circuit simple didn’t like.
$1.00 says SCOTUS reverses, if the Obama mis-administration pursues the matter with any vigor.
“Wearers of unearned medals hope viewers will really think they are valorous veterans, and they hope for a reward from that lie.”
Again, you’re simply ascribing criminal intent to them, which is fine if you are just expressing a personal opinion, but is completely out of line if you are discussing criminal law. Our constitution requires due process, and due process means that criminal intent must be proven in a court of law, otherwise, they are innocent until proven guilty.
“This law simple defined a fraud under the law”
No, it did not. If you read the law, it does not define a specific act of fraud, because fraud is a crime that requires an actual party to be harmed. What this law attempted to do was simply to equate the act of deception with an act of fraud, and to dance around the need for actual fraudulent harm to another party by claiming that the “the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals” were the party being harmed.
That isn’t a legally proper case of fraud, as “decorations and medals” are inanimate objects with no rights, who cannot claim to have been wronged by someone’s deception. Fraud is a crime against people, not against inanimate objects, so the law was not written to simply define a special case of fraud with specific penalties. It attempted to define an altogether new crime, pronouncing an act of expression as fraud so that simply proving the act itself would obviate the need to prove harm or criminal intent. Thankfully the courts didn’t fall for it.