I think he was working the “public shame” angle, not the “beat up by random strangers” angle.
I’d be okay with it if Buzz Aldrin punched him in the face.
Oh, okay. I probably didn’t get it because I have no shame.
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.
Well, i can’t speak for anyone else, but i don’t think i’ve ever claimed that it does.
Every single argument i’ve been making in this thread, as far as i can remember, has been a “should” argument.
I was thinking more of this:
He was probbly trying to impress a girl
You do realize that a Commander in the Navy = Lt Col in the Marines right? And they were at their 20 yr HS reunion together? Making O5 before 20 is the standard. It is also VERY possible to make E-9 in under 20. Happens every year in the AF. Don’t see why it would be different in the Marines, where it is definitely easier to progress up the enlisted ladder (also easier to have stripes taken away).
I’m kind surprised you didn’t know this.
In my experience the majority of these guys who try to pull stunts like this are middle aged to upper middle aged men who couldn’t serve, regret not serving, or had boring lives and want spice. Idiots.
FTR I think the wearing of any official US Military rank, ribbon, medal, occupational badge etc… should be illegal if you haven’t earned it. I don’t think the punishment should be harsh but it should make a statement. Just my 2 bits.
I just wanted to say that guy’s head looks like a penis.
I know I’m late to this discussion but I want to say, as a vet in Afgh right now, I agree with this 100%. I would NEVER wear my gramps Korea or Vietnam medals, even in civvies and even if I was trying to honor him. I didn’t earn them. I’ll never wear them. I’ll just look proudly upon them hanging in his shadow box on my office wall.
I want to make it illegal for men to dress up as women too. Those fuckers fooled me too many times.
Have you considered changing the bar you hang out in?
It’s been noted upthread that the offender in the OP has a male partner. Make what you will of homosexuals impersonating Marines, but I do recall from my time in the Amphibious Navy many Marines impersonating homosexuals. Very convinging impersonations, too.
“Every man thinks less of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been to sea.”
American men who didn’t serve in its armed forces, or didn’t go to college, see a big, big line between themselves and those who did either of those things. I guess it’s because we make our males subject to rites of passsage, instead of just letting everyone acknowledge his own odometer.
I think this is brilliant. I used to have a customer who was a seal…I knew it because one of his relatives told me–he didn’t go around bragging about it.
It’s because you write things like this, Bricker, that I am prepared to call you the most overrated attorney on these boards. This is a pretty fatuous functionalism, even for you. When the Court in Lawrence can write such things as “Bowers was wrong the day it was decided [by the Supreme Court of the United States],” then surely someone as august as yourself can admit that the Constitution has meaning separate from the pronouncements of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. It is this fact that gives rise to our most important lawsuits: where there the law speaks with more than one voice.
I won’t pass on the quality of the poster’s argument that you are addressing, but I will share that I am a little surprised by your embarrassingly facile argument above.
And Mom said I’d never amount to anything.
Utter crap. And I’m not just saying that because of your little love note. I’m saying it because it’s utter crap.
The Supreme Court can indeed say that the Supreme Court was wrong, because they have the ability to overturn their prior decisions; to impose a new meaning of the Constitution on the country as a whole. The Fifth Circuit can say what it likes about Fifth Circuit opinions, as long as there’s no Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. Those are functional statements, in which the meaning of the Constitution is actually changed or clarified.
But when we discuss what the Constitution means here, we have some choices. We can proclaim, as though pronouncing some deep religious conviction, that the Constitution means X, despite the utter absence of any supporting caselaw, and indeed despite the presence of contravening caselaw. That’s fine. I’ll even allow it can be in GD, which is, after all, the place for witnessing.
But witnessing is all it is. It’s more correct, precise, and meaningful to argue that the Constitution SHOULD mean X; you at once acknowledge that the weight of precedent is against you and make clear that you are arguing for a change, not stating an extant rule. When you declare self-righteously that the Constitution means X without such disclaimers, you’re being either obtuse or disingenuous, your little foray into different voices notwithstanding.
You are simply witnessing: offering your unsupported personal views as fact, and inviting others to join your beliefs based on those facts.
If that’s the system, then states may criminalize abortion, because there’s nothing in the Constitution that says they can’t. Period. Roe? Casey? Shut up, I’m not listening, they’re all wrong, and what I say is right. End of discussion.
I hope to address Bricker’s post in more depth later (I do have a life outside this message board!) However, before anyone calls me out on it, yes, I should have described Bricker’s position as formalist, not functionalist.
All too often the official “public shame w/ pic” penalty, when used, turns out to include an un-official “beat up by random strangers” penalty, also. At the very least he’d get harrassed. “Name and shame” doesn’t really work in the West unless the person involved is, like, 8 years old.
The one that grates on me even more than this is the apparently MASSIVE number of special forces and snipers employed during Vietnam. If I had a dime for every (presumed) Vietnam vet that I met that was “special forces” or a "sniper"during their 2 years of service I would be a a millionaire. In fact, I would guesstimate that 4 out of every 5 VVs I’ve met in my life happened to be SF or snipers, and I’ve met A LOT. They gravitate to me if I’m in public in uniform. I’m sure some subset of these individuals were SF but there’s no chance even a quarter of them were.
I’ve never understood why these men feel the need to lie about what they did when they were in. It’s pointless. My gramp was a mess sergeant and never made any bones about it. Doesn’t make him any less of a tough guy to me.
He’s a true sadist!
/wakka wakka wakka