That is where we differ. It's not a symbol. It is an acknowledgement of action. It is an official award given for something specific.
A CIB is not a Pepsi logo. It's more than that.
Just like a civilian cannot go onto a secure installation without permission and not face severe criminal charges, likewise I believe that Congress has the authority to charge someone with wearing a trademarked item that is a military award.
Whether you believe that is the ethical thing to do, I believe Congress has absolute legal authority to do so without any legal twistings or relying upon the "necessary and proper" clause.
They make the regulations for the armed forces. Those regulations determine who can wear which award. Those regulations can stipulate the penalty for someone wearing those awards without permission.
As you said at the beginning, it doesn't matter if it hurts anyone's feelings, the law is the law.
The text of the Constitution suggests otherwise.
The clause you cited earlier from Art. 1 Sec. 8 empowers Congress to make rules "for the land and naval forces". And that's it.
They make the regulations for the armed forces.
Correct.
Those regulations determine who can wear which award.
I would change that to, "The regulations determine which members of the land and naval forces can wear which award."
Those regulations can stipulate the penalty for someone wearing those awards without permission.
I would change that to, "The regulations can stipulate the penalty for members of the land and naval forces wearing awards without permission."
I don't see how Congress's power could extend beyond that described in my "changed" versions WITHOUT resorting to the "necessary and proper" clause.
ASB: “As you said at the beginning, it doesn’t matter if it hurts anyone’s feelings, the law is the law.”
We shall see. My guess is, the court is going to overturn this law.