“Secondly, and most importantly, the 1st Amendment debates and passage was about the freedom of political, ideological, and theological speech.”
No, I’m sorry, but that just isn’t true. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and expression, almost without qualification. The courts have ruled specifically that government cannot restrict the content of that expression unless there is some crucial state interest at stake, such as national security. The government simply has no leg to stand on if it wanted to decide that some speech wasn’t protected because it wasn’t “political, ideological or theological”, because that would be a judgement as to the content of the speech, which would fail a strict scrutiny test.
“Political, ideological, and even theological expression was the original INTENT of the FF’s.”
Prove it, then. If they had intended to limit the freedom in that way, I have no doubt they would have phrased the amendment to specify that, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that this was their only intention for the 1st Amendment speech protections.
“Stolen Valor was definitely NOT in their debates nor intent to be included in the 1st Amendment nor anywhere else in the Constitution.”
Probably because they included blanket protections for speech and expression, so they wouldn’t have had any need to discuss specific circumstances like that.
“Show me where I’m wrong.”
No, you are proposing that the plain language of the Constitution shouldn’t mean what it says, and that centuries of jurisprudence are wrong, so the onus is on you to prove your contention.
Your other questions about original intent are irrelevant, because you have yet to demonstrate that the founders’ original intent for freedom of speech and expression was indeed as limited as you propose. You can’t simply assert “that wasn’t their intent”, you must demonstrate it.
First they are not abridging the content of any speech. The medal wearer is free to say whatever he wants. If his opinion is that he should be allowed to wear a purple heart, he can pontificate till he is blue in the face about why he should be allowed to wear a purple heart.
Secondly, the Federal government certainly does have a compelling interest in making it illegal for him to wear the Purple Heart, as the Executive Branch is charged with running the military, including the administration of military honors. Undermining the system of military honors does hurt the governments interest.
Thirdly, you keep arguing elsewhere that there are already laws about fraud and that if the person wearing the uniform was committing fraud, he should be charged with fraud rather than a law specific to the fraudulent wearing of medals. Your view seems to presuppose that there is a certain number of laws against fraud that should be passed and no more. This makes no sense and is silly.