[Congress passed legislation in 2008 to allow DC and US territories to have their quarters like the 50-State Quarter Program that made the Federal government billions of dollars less poor.]
Since DC is not a state, we do not have voting representation in Congress. Nevertheless, we are required to Federal income taxes. This, ostensibly, was the cause of the American Revolution.
Lots has happened in the past two-hundred thirty-two years. "Taxation Without Representation" is now "controversial":
"Changing how the District of Columbia . . . is represented in Congress is a contemporary political issue on which there presently is no national consensus and over which reasonable minds differ," the Mint said in a statement.
Sounds reasonable, right? We don't want rabble-rousing quarters to negatively affect the dignity of the George Washingon quarter.
Under Federal law, a design cannot be "frivolous or inappropriate." DC's proposal isn't frivolous. I don't know how to interpret "inappropriate," but let's see how the Mint interpreted it.
There is no design criteria on the Mint's website, but since this is an outgrowth of the 50-State Quarter program with the same statutory standard, let's assume that the 50-State design criteria applies:
Designs shall have broad appeal to the citizens of the state and avoid controversial subjects or symbols that are likely to offend.
...
State flags and state seals are not considered suitable for designs. (Ed: Take that, South Carolina!)
...
Inappropriate design concepts include, but are not limited to logos or depictions of specific commercial, private, educational, civic, religious, sports, or other organizations whose membership or ownership is not universal.
The design criteria is subject to interpretation. It could that designs should avoid (a) controversial subjects; and (b) symbols likely to offend. Or it could mean, controversial subjects and controversial symbols, either of which are likely to offend. Perhaps a Treasury Department attorney-advisor was consulted on this.
Reasonably or not, some Americans may feel that full DC voting rights is controversial, but I doubt think it is likely to offend. If you are offended by that, you are a crazy cracker.
In any event, whether legal or not, the Mint will have its way. The Washington Post reports that the District may seek to use its official motto--Justitia Omnibus (Justice for All). Fuck that!
How could you go from the truth that there is taxation without representation to the lie that there is justice for all?
I have a better idea. Submit no motto. A motto is not a design criteria. Just plaster the "controversial Negro" (as Public Enemy would say) Frederick Douglass on the back of the quarter and call it a day. He can be George Washington's new black friend!
This issue relates to another pet peeve of mine. There has never been a USS District of Columbia in the US Navy.
Washingtonians have served in the Navy since its inception and the Washington Navy Yard has been the center of US navy shipbuilding and the largest naval ordnance plant in the world.
If you review a list of USS navy ships, you can tell that the USS DC hasn't not been commissioned because the name may be a bit clunky. Past navy ships include the USS Van Valkenburgh, the USS Chase S. Osburn (scared the crap out of the Germans!), and the USS Cheboygan County (a frickin' county!).
It is a slight, most likely because the majority of its residents have traditionally been black. That is also why there is Taxation Without Representation.
1 comment:
Really , you think it is a racial issue? That is just silly and I think HURTS the legitimate cause of racial equality, to bring the "race card" up in unrelated debates. It is not a state- it is a big compromise to not give any state the benefit of holding the nations capital. As you probably know, many wanted the capital to be New York- as it was already the business and finance powerhouse. The agricultural/ southern crowd did not want the balance of power tipped in that direction. It is a city, essentially, created as a "neutral ground" for national politics. Granting it the status of a state would give a ridiculous amount of power in proportion to the actual number of citizens that live there and are not politicians/staffers/aids etc who represent and work for other states. How would you balance these issues??
Post a Comment