United States Of America, Appellee, V: Fill & Download for Free

Let me reply with a mirror question:How fake is the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan as a representative of the teachings of Jesus?PS: Yes, that's their real name, see Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Invisible Empire,inc., et al., Appellees, v. District of Columbia, et al., Appellants,united States of America, Appellee, 972 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

There is no definitive answer. If you can maintain position in International waters you may be outside the jurisdiction of the USCG. But if you are in waters of a noation that has agreed that the USCG can conduct business then they can do whatever they choose. This legal case covers many of the situations…though not strictly analagous:United States of America, Appellee, v. Errol Maynard, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Glen Petersen, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Austin Caines, Defendant, Appellant, 888 F.2d 918 (1st Cir. 1989)

Under the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations38 U.S. Code § 1501(3) (2017) states “The term ‘Civil War veteran’ includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term ‘active military or naval service’ includes active service in those forces.”The Code of Federal Regulations does not define either Union or Confederate Civil War veterans as veterans. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(e) (2017) states “Veteran of any war means any veteran who served in the active military, naval or air service during a period of war as set forth in §3.2.” Interestingly, 38 C.F.R. §3.2 (2017) list every war beginning with the Indian Wars but fails to list the Civil War, so neither Union nor Confederate Civil War veterans are defined as veterans under the CFR’s definition.Congress passed a number of laws that required for Union and Confederate Civil War veterans to be treated equally.In 1906, Congress passed Public Law 38 to provide funding and care for the graves of Confederate Veterans.In 1929, Congress passed Public Law 810 to authorize the Secretary of War to erect headstones over the graves of Confederate Veterans. This Public Law was codified as 38 U.S. Code § 2306 — Headstones, markers, and burial receptacles.In 1958, Congress passed Public Law 85–425 and 85–857. These laws provided for pensions for Confederate veterans and the widows and children of the veterans.The U.S. Supreme Court held that veterans of the same war must not be treated differently because of the veterans state of origin.The United States Supreme Court held that a New Mexico law that created two legal tiers of Vietnam veterans, one from the state and another not originally from the New Mexico, violated the Equal Protection Clause. “The New Mexico statute creates two tiers of resident Vietnam veterans, identifying resident veterans who settled in the State after May 8, 1976, as in a sense “second-class citizens.” This discrimination on the basis of residence is not supported by any identifiable state interest. . . .” Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor, 472 US 612 (1985). “Neither the Equal Protection Clause, nor this Court’s precedents, permit the State to prefer established resident veterans over newcomers in the retroactive apportionment of an economic benefit.” Id. Similarly, a law or ordinance that treats Confederate Civil War veterans differently from Union Civil War veterans, is treating American Civil War veterans differently based on their state of origin.The United States Supreme Court also held that a New York law that treated equally situated veterans differently based on their state of origin when they entered the Armed Forces was unconstitutional and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.In sum, the provisions of New York’s Constitution, Art. V, § 6, and Civil Service Law § 85, which limit the award of a civil service employment preference to resident veterans who lived in New York at the time they entered the Armed Forces, effectively penalize otherwise qualified resident veterans who do not meet the prior residence requirement for their exercise of the right to migrate. The State has not met its heavy burden of proving that it has selected a means of pursuing a compelling state interest which does not impinge unnecessarily on constitutionally protected interests. Consequently, we conclude that New York’s veterans’ preference violates appellees’ constitutionally protected rights to migrate and to equal protection of the law.Attorney General of NY v. Soto-Lopez, 476 US 898 (1986).Also consider that many Confederate soldiers were veterans of the Indian Wars, so many are veterans of the United States armed forces due to their previous service to the United States.