Posted on 02/06/2010 3:31:30 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
I have repeatedly seperated the ideas of bragging about something and actually wearing the ribbon.
I see the difference between the two.
Do you?
Our Constitution put into practice the concept of Natural Law as espoused in the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the context of Natural Law that our Declaration and Constitution form a coherent whole. While I do claim to be a classical philosopher, I have read enough what our Framer's read to understand what and why they did what they did.
FWIW, the basic sources of my point of view are:
Levin's "Libery & Tyranny," Budziszewski's "Written on the Heart," and "A Miracle That Changed The World," by Skousen.
Thank you for your service in Vietnam.
What we are discussing here is someone who wears an unauthorized ribbon in order to impress people. They are not claiming to be a war veteran to gain benefits other than to...maybe...pick up a bar floozy.
Does the freedom of speech give people the right to lie? I say yes. That’s reprehensible but protected speech.
Pardon me, that is “do NOT” claim to be a classical philosopher!
Thats a really bad analogy. There is a significant difference between me telling you I won a SIlver Star during a job interview as opposed to me telling you that I will kill you if you don't give me a job. One might simply sway your thinking, the other would most likely place you in fear of great bodily harm or death.
Yes, there’s a difference between wearing a ribbing and simply bragging about having one. I see the difference but I don’t see how wearing a symbol is itself criminal. If that symbol was purchased legally, the fake war hero is a legal owner of it. If they wear it without attempting to gain something tangible, then it’s the same thing as you displaying a home-made shirt with a trademarked symbol on it. You can do that. It’s legal.
That’s why I made the point about causing veterans (of which I’m one) discomfort. Sorry, but I don’t think it should be a crime to offend someone.
Unfortunately, many of these knuckleheads make disparaging remarks about the armed forces.
Remember Jesse MacBeth? He washed out of Army Basic Training, went home and became the star of a newspaper article when he described his exploits as an Airborne Ranger. He became the toast of the anti military crowd. He claimed that his team would grab entire families and kill them one by one until the got the information they wanted. Journalists and communist groups repeated MacBeth's claims without any attempt to verify the info. He was finally busted when real Rangers investigated his claims and exposed him as a fraud. He was never punished for his slander, but he did a few years for receiving VA benefits through fraud.
How about Scott Beuchamp? He was a journalist who joined in order to lend credibility to his hit pieces against the American Military in "The New Republic" online magazine under a pseudo-name. In his articles he claimed to have worn a child's skull as a hat, mocked a female burn victim with his buddies in the DFAC and used "illegal 'square backed bullets' in his Glock." When the Army tracked him down and investigated these and other claims, they determined all of his articles were lies.
These jokers, and others who denigrate American war-fighters, not only tarnish the reputation of true Soldiers, they also give ammunition to America's enemies both foreign and domestic.
Now for the reality check; if some clown in a bar spins a tall tale about humping a ruck in the mountains in Afghanistan so be it. He'll get busted sooner or later. However, if some lying weasel sits in a bar and claims he was in the Army's super secret squirrel corp, and his team killed children and planted evidence to frame al Queda...that's a whole different story. He needs jail time.
That is where we differ. It's not a symbol. It is an acknowledgement of action. It is an official award given for something specific.
A CIB is not a Pepsi logo. It's more than that.
Just like a civilian cannot go onto a secure installation without permission and not face severe criminal charges, likewise I believe that Congress has the authority to charge someone with wearing a trademarked item that is a military award.
Whether you believe that is the ethical thing to do, I believe Congress has absolute legal authority to do so without any legal twistings or relying upon the "necessary and proper" clause.
They make the regulations for the armed forces. Those regulations determine who can wear which award. Those regulations can stipulate the penalty for someone wearing those awards without permission.
As you said at the beginning, it doesn't matter if it hurts anyone's feelings, the law is the law.
You’ve never flipped off a cop?
If Obama can call himself an American citizen...
So then it would be legal to say you were going to kill someone if you did not hurt them.
Thats a really bad analogy? I just went to the extreme of what the lawyers said.
The text of the Constitution suggests otherwise.
The clause you cited earlier from Art. 1 Sec. 8 empowers Congress to make rules "for the land and naval forces". And that's it.
They make the regulations for the armed forces.
Correct.
Those regulations determine who can wear which award.
I would change that to, "The regulations determine which members of the land and naval forces can wear which award."
Those regulations can stipulate the penalty for someone wearing those awards without permission.
I would change that to, "The regulations can stipulate the penalty for members of the land and naval forces wearing awards without permission."
I don't see how Congress's power could extend beyond that described in my "changed" versions WITHOUT resorting to the "necessary and proper" clause.
Can a private civilian walk onto a secure military installation without permission?
If Congress doesn’t have any authority over civilians under Article I, Section 8, then that answer should be “yes”. Correct?
ASB: “As you said at the beginning, it doesn’t matter if it hurts anyone’s feelings, the law is the law.”
We shall see. My guess is, the court is going to overturn this law.
I believe your understanding of Congress’s power in this matter, that it can only apply to members of the armed forces, is the one that will prevail in court. I will applaud the decision if that is the case.
There’s a difference between using speech to threaten someone and lying in order to make yourself look better. There’s a SUBSTANTIAL difference there.
Not necessarily. Congress's power over military installations is covered by the 17th clause of Art. 1, Sec. 8 which reads "...to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be." As Federally "owned" property Congress can stipulate conditions for accessing or using it.
This clause would not cover the law in question since the law applies both on and off military installations. Again, without a tenuous argument tied to the "necessary and proper" clause I fail to see how Congress is empowered to enact these restrictions.
I am curious to know what you think are the limitations to Congress's power under the "regulation of the land and naval forces" clause. If Congress can prohibit the wearing of unearned medals by civilians not on a military installation, can they also prohibit the wearing of an Army PT shirt or uniform-like clothing? Stipulate a national diet for teenagers to decrease training time for new recruits? Prohibit "boot camp" style fitness programs for civilians?
Thank you for proving my point!
Ribbons are property of the U.S. Armed Forces and Congress can stipulate conditions for using them!
By "property" I meant "real property." I though this was apparent from context since I was referring to clause 17, which covers "...authority over all places purchased...", but perhaps I should have been more precise in my language.
Military ribbons are things, not places. Moreover, the Federal government does not "own" ribbons purchased by private individuals from private sellers.
It is their property, as in “intellectual property”, and they take those ownership privileges very seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.