What a dog-rocket of biblical proportions!!

[racrguy]

This is an interesting change in position for you. Normally the vehement constitutionalist...

He agrees with it when it agrees with him.

Be careful! Disagreeing with his view of the constitution is treason!

+10 internets.

[BMCSean]

What happened to YOLO? I miss that guy, Yale reminds me of him.

[4eyedwillie]

You have a right to wear a military uniform with medals? No, you really don't. It's not a first amendment issue as you can wear that uniform as long as it bears no medals, no unit insignia, no name patches, nothing that marks it as a Marine uniform. The fabric isn't the issue. It's what he put on it that is

As long as I'm not saying I'm a marine then yes I do. And don't quote military law to me, since I'm NOT in the military it doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to you anymore either but you won't be able to recognize it since that's your only way to validate your existence.
It is a first amendment issue but since it involves your precious military you will be incapable of recognizing it.

[racrguy]

As long as I'm not saying I'm a marine then yes I do. And don't quote military law to me, since I'm NOT in the military it doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to you anymore either but you won't be able to recognize it since that's your only way to validate your existence.
It is a first amendment issue but since it involves your precious military you will be incapable of recognizing it.

You can even say you're a Marine, the problem lies with when you try to gain from it. At that point you cross the line into fraud.

[4eyedwillie]

You can even say you're a Marine, the problem lies with when you try to gain from it. At that point you cross the line into fraud.

*I* agree with you but I was trying to make a bigger dividing line in the forlorn hope that he might recognize it.

[racrguy]

*I* agree with you but I was trying to make a bigger dividing line in the forlorn hope that he might recognize it.

You should lower your bar. It's black and white for him, no gray whatsoever.

[Forever_frost]

This is an interesting change in position for you. Normally the vehement constitutionalist...

I am the constitutionalist. I fail to see how this violates free speech or expression. If you wish to wear a military uniform, you must remove insignia of the branch and cannot wear the medals. Now, you can parody it all you like however you cannot wear it with identifying marks marking it as belonging to the specific branch.

100% in line with the constitution.

[Forever_frost]

As long as I'm not saying I'm a marine then yes I do. And don't quote military law to me, since I'm NOT in the military it doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to you anymore either but you won't be able to recognize it since that's your only way to validate your existence.
It is a first amendment issue but since it involves your precious military you will be incapable of recognizing it.

Correction, the UCMJ doesn't apply to me or you. US Code does. It is labeled under "Military Law" because, what other heading would you put wearing military uniforms and medals under?

[Ruffdaddy]

While its a shitty thing to do...I'm starting to feel like the marines on this board are the biggest cry baby group ever.

Waaahhhh!!!! He's dressing up like me
Waaaahhh...they're making us reduce the rate at which out already already out of control budget is increasing.
Waaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!! One of my own "brothers in arms" can get a higher award than my bronze star without actually being there despite being effective.

And y'all act like America is too PC or sensitive? Dude y'all cry about the dumbest shit.

There...it had to be said.

[4eyedwillie]

Correction, the UCMJ doesn't apply to me or you. US Code does. It is labeled under "Military Law" because, what other heading would you put wearing military uniforms and medals under?

So your cool with something that limits my First amendment rights? Gotcha!
Military Law means laws for the military. Doesn't apply to civilians and if it did it would be unconstitutional because it limits my first amendment rights.

[Forever_frost]

Again, show me how it's a violation of your 1st amendment rights. You are free to wear it all you like, however you must remove the medals and branch insignia. Otherwise, knock yourself out

[4eyedwillie]

Again, show me how it's a violation of your 1st amendment rights. You are free to wear it all you like, however you must remove the medals and branch insignia. Otherwise, knock yourself out

If I want to wear it it is my right to wear it and express my feelings about it. I might think it looks cool (which it does). Under the 1st amendment I have the right to freedom of expression, NOT limited freedom of expression. If I can't put the pretty baubles on there then I am being limited in what I can express. I Said bauble's because since I didn't earn them that's all they would be is bits of cloth and metal. Maybe I want to go to a costume party? 2 Quarters was at a NASCAR race for god's sake not the Marine core ball.

[Forever_frost]

Again, nope. Not unless you remove insignia and medals. ow if you would like to argue further, you are free to challenge this law in the Supreme Court. I believe that is what I am constantly told.

[4eyedwillie]

Again, nope. Not unless you remove insignia and medals. ow if you would like to argue further, you are free to challenge this law in the Supreme Court. I believe that is what I am constantly told.

And since it involves the military you can't see where the law might be unconstitutional? When every other thing out of you is that's unconstitutional?
Man what a narrow minded looser you are Brain Freeze.

[racrguy]

Again, nope. Not unless you remove insignia and medals. ow if you would like to argue further, you are free to challenge this law in the Supreme Court. I believe that is what I am constantly told.

A law extremely similar was challenged, and shot down. You're just failing to see the similarities.

Someone can wear whatever the fuck they want to as long as it doesn't meet a very short list of restrictions, says the SCOTUS.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 11–210. Argued February 22, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012

The Stolen Valor Act makes it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals and provides an enhanced penalty if the Congressional Medal of Honor is involved. 18 U. S. C. §§704 (b), (c). Respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of falsely claiming that he had received the Medal of Honor, but reserved his right to appeal his claim that the Act is unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding the Act invalid under the First Amendment.

Held:The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 3-18.
617 F. 3d 1198, affirmed.
JUSTICE KENNEDY, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concluded that the Act infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment. Pp. 3–18.
(a) The Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v.American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S. 656, 660.

Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf

The law you're citing is null and void, because if one was to be charged under that law all one needs to do is cite US v Alvarez. It's called legal precedence, water head.

They also didn't strike down the penalty, they struck down the portion that made it a crime to make the claim.

Work the Google on the internets machine. The days of being able to claim things and not be fact checked are over.