First Amendment, anyone?
 

Oooh! Burger was whipping out the "Schechter Poultry?" wpp

S_A_M

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I'm not persuaded. In fact, it seems to me my tax dollars would be better spent buying the body armor than prosecuting some little gutter-rat for tagging the local Social Security office. Plus, it creates more job security for the GSA guy who paints it.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

You and Greedy are killing me here...

I was fucking around, addressing in the voice of an absurd moralist your argument that we should not waste time on silly laws like the medal act when our law enforcement instrumentality should be out chasing serious crimes like child molestation.

The sort of moralists who love those medal laws love them because they give them a wedge issue or pedestal from which to spew their judgments about others...

hatch act
 

(1) That doesn't follow, as Burger pointed out.

(2) When the government gives you a medal, it gives you a medal. You can then sell it to someone else, who can use it as they like. Unlike the Hatch Act.

hatch act
 

Microsoft can sell you software and say you can't let anyone else use it. The government gives it that right. If the government can give others the right to limit use, why can't it have the right to limit it itself?

Oh, and how come the statute has stood for 80 years and the ACLU has been around too?

hatch act
 

When you find someone who was awarded a medal by the government and who received a license with it that limited subsequent uses, you just let me know. And even so, the license wouldn't be binding on an unwitting bona fide purchaser, right? So how could that be the basis for criminal liability?

Maybe because it applied only to the Medal of Honor? Or maybe it was never enforced? I dunno.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

What color is that horse? Why couldn't the government pass a law that protected only government property? You can't kill animals in Yellowstone that you can kill on your ranch.

hatch act
 

On 1. Huh? It's not all about IP law here. The government is limiting fake medals, not real ones.

On 2. Isn't slavery still legal in Mississippi? Or miscegination illegal? Or something like that? The fact that a law hasn't been challenged could mean only that it hasn't been enforced. I don't think anyone here has argued the law is facially unconstitutional--that is, there are circumstances in which it could be constitutionally enforced.

hatch act
 

Say I'm the King: and i give you a medal (suspend disbelief here), AND I've enacted a law that says "only the people I give the medals to can wear them outside," that's very much like a use based license.

oh, and bona fide purchasers are still infringers, and the guy who buys the medal and wears it? are you making like a "mistake of law is okay" argument?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I have no dog in this fight, but what makes you think there are "many, many cases?"

hatch act
 

I'm talking about the power to limit use. of course the g can limit fakes- or is counterfeiting "free speech?"-

again, google and read. it was being enforced. I don't think Ms. is still holding slave auctions even if the law still exists.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

GOOGLE

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Again, I really don't care about this discussion, but yes, I think nearly every law that passes Congress gets through without much (credible) constitutional analysis.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I think that in the absence of general laws governing the defacement of property, a law that applied only to governmental property might change the applicable test from rational basis, with the focus being the protection of property generally, to strict scrutiny, if the government is seen as only restricting the political or artistic expression of citizens with respect to the seats of power.

I'm not saying this is the right answer, but the restriction of protection to governmental property does change one's point of view.

hatch act
 

You don't think the status of employees as employees might have something to do with it?