I agree with you on equal protection under the law. Look at the thread asking if Muslims should be allowed to become U.S. Citizens.
But in this case, I think there is authority under the U.S. Constitution for Congress to forbid the wearing of ribbons and medals unless actually earned.
The U.S. Congress is the authority when it comes to the Federal Armed Forces. The Constitution gives them this authority under Article I, Section 8:
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Under this authority, Congress has the right to regulate who can wear specific ribbons. This also gives them the authority to say who cannot wear the specific ribbons.
As I said, bragging and shooting your mouth off is not of concern. But the actual wearing of the ribbon does fall under the authority of the laws of Congress under the Constitution.
At least that’s my view of it.
ASB: “Under this authority, Congress has the right to regulate who can wear specific ribbons. This also gives them the authority to say who cannot wear the specific ribbons.”
An interesting point and plausible argument. I wonder if the government prosecutors will use it.
To me, that gives Congress the right to set rules for the military, not necessarily set rules for private citizens who are not in the military. A military member could be punished under the UCMJ for wearing the wrong rank, but I don’t think that authority extends to punishing private citizens who want to play colonel.
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Under this authority, Congress has the right to regulate who can wear specific ribbons. This also gives them the authority to say who cannot wear the specific ribbons.
The power you cited only covers the regulation of land and naval forces, not all persons in the U.S.
An argument could be made that the "necessary and proper" clause authorizes restrictions on the wearing of awards by non-land or naval forces (i.e. all persons in the U.S.) since awards have less "value" if many people falsely claim to have earned them, and that less valuable awards will result in a reduced ability to regulate the land and naval forces.
However, that seems like a very tenuous argument. If the "necessary and proper" clause can be stretched that far then there is really almost nothing beyond the scope of Congress's power, which is not what the Founders intended.
Even if these restrictions are technically Constitutional, it seems obvious that they are being imposed because people are offended by phony veterans, not because anyone is really worried that the lies of a few dirtbags will hinder the operation of the armed forces. As people who value liberty, we should not support using legal technicalities to achieve ends that are contrary to the principles of limited government.
BTW, while there are only less than a million of us left of the 2.5 million who served in Vietnam, there are 9 million claiming to be. Again, if you have the orders to support your claim, no problem. If you don't, perhaps a penalty is in order.
We are not too kind to the wannabes. However, they are easy for us to spot.