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.
Simple test to that question:
Can a private citizen walk onto a secure military installation?
If not, does it follow that the authority of the Federal Government extends to civilians when it comes to military property?
(Do you see where this is going?)
If the ribbons are protected intellectual property under the Lanham Act of the U.S. Military (and they are), then the extension of the protection of that property from unauthorized use does extend to civilians.
In other words, wearing a ribbon that has been trademarked by the U.S. Military extends the control of the U.S. Congress to the wearer. Just as stepping onto a secure military installation puts you under the rules that govern that property.
And just as there are stiffer penalties for trespassing onto a secure military installation than, say, trespassing on your neighbors property, the U.S. Congress can establish stiffer penalties on wearing certain trademarked items without authority than might otherwise be established in local or State laws.
At least that is how I would argue the case from the Federal Government's point of view.