I worked for him for two years. He was an inspiration to us all, and his death remains to this day shocking to me. He obviously was so ashamed of his behavior, which comparatively speaking these days was absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. The man was a hero.

Don't our politicians do this all the time, depending on what your meaning of "Hero" is -unless this now falls under the banner of - "Character doesn't matter."

What good are any laws to enforce this kind of deceit when we cleary live in a society of relative morality -relative truth -and we reward the biggest liars with the best "photoshopped" images - the highest offices in the land?

Yes, the military academy acceptance is true. Since many if not most medal of honor winners come posthumous or with severe injury, I do not begrudge ensuring that their children will receive a top notch education at government expense if the same children agree to the resulting duty to serve, abide by the academy's code of honor, etc.

James,

Ask yourself the question why would someone hold themselves out to be a medal of honor winner when they are not. I think you will find that, with the exception of being mistaken, they seek to reap a benefit. The benefit may be tangible or intangible, but it would be a benefit. Tangible benefits can be handled with existing fraud laws. But how do you undo the intangible benefits?

Now if I (falsely) said that I saved 6 orphans from a fire, I could also reap intangible benefits in the same sort of manner. So why act in the medal case and not the false rescue? Because as a nation the medal of honor recognizes someone who had a duty to put themselves in harms way (by being a member of the military during a conflict) and went above and beyond that duty. Not all action above and beyond the duty (e.g. a distinguished flying cross or navy cross) is being protected. Only the highest of honors. I consider it a way for the government to not let the honor won be cheapened by those who falsely claim it reap the intangible benefits (or tangible benefits). To not act is to debase the honor to some degree.

In a perfect world, I agree. We would live in a country that someone who would do such a thing would be denied fire or shelter. But we don't live in a perfect world.

Yes it is. And almost all MOH recipients are awarded because they were killed in line of duty. Actually all since Viet Nam. So there just isn't a large number of children ever eligible.

* Children of recipients are eligible for admission to the United States military academies without regard to the quota requirements.

Is this really true? It seems kind of antithetical to the whole merit-based system of the Academies.

if someone claims to be a veteran or a war hero in order to bilk someone out of benefits to which he’d otherwise not be entitled, it should be illegal on that basis. But why is pretending to be a hero in order to get admiration against the law?

James,
The speech is protected, but the fraud to gain benefits is not. While intangible benefits, like "respect" and "favors done for war heroes" are things I'm not sure can be defined legally, other things are. To address this and your most recent comment, I (reluctantly, but in this instance the research seems to be properly documented) refer you to this:
By law, recipients have several benefits:

* Each Medal of Honor recipient may have his or her name entered on the Medal of Honor Roll (38 U.S.C. § 1560). Each person whose name is placed on the Medal of Honor Roll is certified to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs as being entitled to receive the special pension of US$1027 per month. As of December 1, 2004, the pension is subject to cost-of-living increases.
* Enlisted recipients of the Medal of Honor are entitled to a supplemental uniform allowance.
* Recipients receive special entitlements to air transportation under the provisions of DOD Regulation 4515.13-R.
* Special identification cards and commissary and exchange privileges are provided for Medal of Honor recipients and their eligible dependents.
* Children of recipients are eligible for admission to the United States military academies without regard to the quota requirements.
* Recipients receive a 10% increase in retired pay under 10 U.S.C. § 3991.
* Those awarded the medal after October 23, 2002 also receive a Medal of Honor Flag. The law also specifies that all 143 living Medal of Honor recipients receive the flag along with all future recipients.(14 U.S.C. § 505).
* As with all medals, retired personnel may wear the Medal of Honor on "appropriate" civilian clothing. Regulations also specify that recipients of the Medal of Honor are allowed to wear the uniform "at their pleasure" with standard restrictions on political, commercial, or extremist purposes; other former members of the armed forces may do so only at certain ceremonial occasions.

The law will hold up under constitutional scrutiny.

Could be but that's not the point of the post. I'm not arguing the law's unconstitutionality, merely its inadvisability.

Why is this particular lie worthy of prosecution?

Is there an actor’s clause exempting thespians?

Yes. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the reason military uniforms are invariably screwed up in the movies is not fear of "impersonating an officer" but rather inattention to detail.