# Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [November 12, 2009, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292 "2009-11-12T06:52:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 124

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292/124 "2009-11-14T01:07:26Z")

</div>

> [@mhendo](#):
>
> See, there you go again, pretending that a moral and philosophical issue can always be reduced, in its entirety, to a legal one. I can recognize that your principled objection to abortion should not be dismissed out of hand simply because the issue has been determined by the Supreme Court. I appreciate that your moral objections to the practice transcend the question of whether the practice is legal.
> 
> I recognize what the Stolen Valor law IS, that it was passed by Congress, and that it has been upheld by a federal court.
> 
> But this does not preclude an argument that the law itself still violates the _principles_ of freedom of expression enunciated in the Constitution, and the general ideals of free speech that Americans usually claim to hold dear. I believe that it does, and while i recognize that Congress and the federal courts are the ones who determine the law, i am still at liberty (i assume, although with **robby** around, you never know) to disagree with their judgment on this issue, from a basic standpoint of what i believe constitutes an appropriate level of freedom of expression.

Of course you’re free to do that.

But in doing so, it seems disingenuous, or at least distracting, to claim that the Constitution protects this conduct.

You may safely say, “the ideals of the Constitution should protect this conduct” and be on solid ground. But when you (or anyone) claims that the actual Constitution means X, then we move from a nebulous discussion about what _should be_ to a more defined and rigorous discussion of _what is_.

Never once have I said, “The Constitution doesn’t protect a woman’s right to choose.” I’ve often said it shouldn’t, I’ve often said I disagree with the rulings that hold it does, I’ve even said that the TEXT of the Constitution has no support for the view, but I’ve never said that Constitution doesn’t mean that. Because it does, unless and until the statutory law or the caselaw changes.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fake-marine-in-full-uniform-at-his-high-school-reunion-is-found-out-by-classmate-arrested-with-pic/517292)._