Presidential Arms of Office

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
15 April 2010 12:17
 

We’ve tackled this before but I want to see where the discussion leads this time. It is commonly accepted that armigerous President’s don’t make use of a coat of arms connected to their time in office as President. Furthermore, there is no "arms of office" for the President that could be marshaled to his own arms, etc. Similarly there is no coat of arms of the President.

However, there is the ubiquitous Presidential Seal. While that seal is an armorial one employing a modified version of the arms of the United States it can be said, then, that there is an armorial achievement joined to the Office of President. There is, in a sense, arms of office for the US President. namely, the arms depicted on the Presidential seal. Since this is used by whomever is the incumbent it has become, for all intents and purposes, the "arms" of office.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 April 2010 14:59
 

There actually are, formally speaking, "Presidential arms," namely the emblazonment that appears on the Presidential seal, but with the encircling rings and words removed.

But I remain unconvinced that it would be either useful or appropriate to begin marshalling the shield of these arms (i.e., the shield of the arms of the United States) with the personal arms of a President for the time being. The entire authority of the US is not vested in the President the way that the authority of, say, a diocese is vested in the bishop. That’s why, for example, it’s just as appropriate for the Supreme Court’s seal to bear the arms of the U.S. as it is for the President’s.

 

Beyond that, I think the temptation is already great enough for "the most powerful man in the world" to identify his office with himself, without our lending heraldic encouragement to the tendency.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
15 April 2010 15:26
 

First, I knew you’d be the first to respond, Joe.

Second, you said;
Joseph McMillan;75900 wrote:

But I remain unconvinced that it would be either useful or appropriate to begin marshalling the shield of these arms (i.e., the shield of the arms of the United States) with the personal arms of a President for the time being.


No one is suggesting it would be either useful or appropriate. In fact, I suggested just the opposite stating that it isn’t done. Instead, I was again asserting something that many others seem intent on denying. Namely, that there are no arms of office for the President of the United States.

 

We seem to be in agreement that the arms on the seal puts the lie to that denial.

 
arriano
 
Avatar
 
 
arriano
Total Posts:  1303
Joined  20-08-2004
 
 
 
15 April 2010 17:53
 

I believe some time ago there was a discussion regarding whether a president or ex-president should add something to their existing personal arms to indicate they once held the country’s highest office. As I recall it was discussed whether supporters would be appropriate, among other things. I would say that since Washington, Adams et al did not start such a tradition, that it most likely never will be.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
15 April 2010 22:04
 

There are government positions that require the use of a seal, the President of the United States being such an office.  I do not believe that, since the seal happens to use a heraldic achievement, this gives the President arms of office.

The Secretaries all use seals in their capacity, as well.  The Treasury, for example, has a seal with a coat of arms whilst the Interior has a seal depicting the bison .  So if the arms of office were to be derived from seals, there are many an office lacing any such heraldic device, despite being of equal rank.

 

Then State has for a seal the arms of the United States as well, creating what would be duplicate arms of office for the Secretary of State and the President.  The Vice-President likewise uses the same arms upon his seal.  Then one could argue the Speaker of the House would be able to use the arms of the House in her role, which are also the same arms as the others mentioned before.  This would be quite a confusing mess.

 

Ordinary men becoming President stay ordinary men during and after their tenure in office.  There is no reason to add supporters or caps or arms of office.  However, there is nothing preventing a man from adding an augmentation if he so wished to his personal arms.  Much akin to how a couple families have augmented their arms to show that a family member has been elected Pope, whilst the vast majority of papal families do not do such.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2010 00:18
 

xanderliptak;75906 wrote:

Then State has for a seal the arms of the United States as well, creating what would be duplicate arms of office for the Secretary of State and the President.  The Vice-President likewise uses the same arms upon his seal.  Then one could argue the Speaker of the House would be able to use the arms of the House in her role, which are also the same arms as the others mentioned before.  This would be quite a confusing mess.


No the coat of arms on the Presidential Seal (i.e. the coat of arms of the Presidency) is not the same as the coat of arms of the United States. The designs are different and the one used by the President is unique to that office.

 
Deer Sniper
 
Avatar
 
 
Deer Sniper
Total Posts:  222
Joined  13-06-2008
 
 
 
16 April 2010 00:35
 

In a situation something like this. In the code dictating the design of the flag of Virginia, is the designation of the obverse of the great seal of Virginia as the arms of the Commonwealth. I have seen it written that Virginia has no coat of arms, but here Virginia law contradicts that statement

" (Code of Virginia, Section 7.1-32. Flag of the Commonwealth.) The flag of the Commonwealth shall hereafter be made of bunting or merino. It shall be a deep blue field, with a circular white centre of the same material. Upon this circle shall be painted or embroidered, to show on both sides alike, the coat of arms of the Commonwealth, as described in Section 7.1-26 for the obverse of the great seal of the Commonwealth; and there shall be a white silk fringe on the outer edge, furthest from the flagstaff. This shall be known and respected as the flag of Virginia."

 

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj301/norinko/Virginiaseal.jpg

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
16 April 2010 03:35
 

gselvester;75908 wrote:

No the coat of arms on the Presidential Seal (i.e. the coat of arms of the Presidency) is not the same as the coat of arms of the United States. The designs are different and the one used by the President is unique to that office.


The difference between the US and presidential seal is in the crest, where one displays the glory in an arc formation, whilst the other in a circle.  Hardly a different coat of arms, just a different crest.  And even that is debatable, given the US arms describes the crest as a glory breaking through the clouds, which could be displayed in the same fashion as the President’s arc and be correct.

 

Nonetheless, the Secretary of State uses the arms of the US on her seal.  If you count the arc in the crest sufficient to be counted as completely new arms, then the seal of the Vice-President still uses the same arms as the President.  If you do not, then all three offices use same arms.  Not to mention the Attorney General’s seal shows the arms, though without a crest and the eagle resting upon the shield, and how it may fit in with the rest.

 

Anyways, because of the duplication and repetition of design, it is clear that the seals are not meant to represent arms of office but merely artistic designs inspired by the US seal.  The arms are repeated on the seals of the Senate, Congress, House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, in addition to those already mentioned.  Any small variations can not be counted as new arms, but simply variations expected in artistic renderings.

 

There has arisen a notion that there is an "official" rendering, which is the current seal and arms, and that any derivation from it even in style voids the whole rendition; this ignorant to the designs of the numerous other seals before the current one.  I would attribute this to the standardization of government emblems and logos the last few generations, which cause such endless repetition of only one specific design that it is natural for government officials to believe that an arc or circle of clouds would be sufficient enough to declare the arms completely new; or the idea that the number of feathers of the eagle must remain the same less it voids the whole design, as well as the idea the olives must number to a certain extent or be declared new arms themselves.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
16 April 2010 03:45
 

Deer Sniper;75909 wrote:

In a situation something like this. In the code dictating the design of the flag of Virginia, is the designation of the obverse of the great seal of Virginia as the arms of the Commonwealth. I have seen it written that Virginia has no coat of arms, but here Virginia law contradicts that statement

" (Code of Virginia, Section 7.1-32. Flag of the Commonwealth.) The flag of the Commonwealth shall hereafter be made of bunting or merino. It shall be a deep blue field, with a circular white centre of the same material. Upon this circle shall be painted or embroidered, to show on both sides alike, the coat of arms of the Commonwealth, as described in Section 7.1-26 for the obverse of the great seal of the Commonwealth; and there shall be a white silk fringe on the outer edge, furthest from the flagstaff. This shall be known and respected as the flag of Virginia."

 

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj301/norinko/Virginiaseal.jpg


The description of the seal of Virginia lacks any mention as the design being a coat of arms.  Even if it had, it would have been an error.  The seal from the Code of Virginia, ยง1-500 states the following,

 

The great seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of two metallic discs, two and one-fourth inches in diameter, with an ornamental border one fourth of an inch wide, with such words and figures engraved thereon as will, when used, produce impressions to be described as follows: On the obverse, Virtus, the genius of the Commonwealth, dressed as an Amazon, resting on a spear in her right hand, point downward, touching the earth; and holding in her left hand, a sheathed sword, or parazonium, pointing upward; her head erect and face upturned; her left foot on the form of Tyranny represented by the prostrate body of a man, with his head to her left, his fallen crown nearby, a broken chain in his left hand, and a scourge in his right. Above the group and within the border conforming therewith, shall be the word "Virginia," and, in the space below, on a curved line, shall be the motto, "Sic Semper Tyrannis." On the reverse, shall be placed a group consisting of Libertas, holding a wand and pileus in her right hand; on her right, Aeternitas, with a globe and phoenix in her right hand; on the left of Libertas, Ceres, with a cornucopia in her left hand, and an ear of wheat in her right; over this device, in a curved line, the word "Perseverando.

 

It is a common error to call a seal a coat of arms, which seems to be the case in the flag’s description.  There is no coat of arms for Virginia.  Even with the law regarding the flag saying the seal is the arms, it does not make it so; it is merely an error of terminology.  If Virginia legislated the sky was green, it does not make it so; so the same for using heraldic terms wrong.

 
Deer Sniper
 
Avatar
 
 
Deer Sniper
Total Posts:  222
Joined  13-06-2008
 
 
 
16 April 2010 04:18
 

xanderliptak;75914 wrote:

It is a common error to call a seal a coat of arms, which seems to be the case in the flag’s description.  There is no coat of arms for Virginia.  Even with the law regarding the flag saying the seal is the arms, it does not make it so; it is merely an error of terminology.  If Virginia legislated the sky was green, it does not make it so; so the same for using heraldic terms wrong.


I am afraid Sir that I must differ on this point. Good heraldry or not. Mistake or not. The passing of a law by the legislature of the Commonwealth with the wording

 

" to show on both sides alike, the coat of arms of the Commonwealth, as described in Section 7.1-26 for the obverse of the great seal of the Commonwealth"

 

Makes it so. And I believe a court of law would agree. And the vert sky analogy really is apples and oranges.

 

Here is an example of much worse governmental arms.

 

Are the arms of Haiti shown below heraldic?.....No!

Is this the Arms of Haiti?..............................Yes!

Why?.......................................Because the Haitian government says so.

 

And we have discussed this very point before, though I cant seem to find the thread.

 

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj301/norinko/internet/Haiti.jpg

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
16 April 2010 05:14
 

There was a split as to whether the wording of a law makes what is not a coat of arms a coat of arms, I remember the thread.

However, how can you dismiss the sky colour analogy because it is so obviously incorrect, but accept something that is so obviously not a coat of arms as one under the same premise? that a law was passed declaring so.  Sure, a government can not change the colour of the sky, but so they can not likewise change what is a coat of arms.

 

Simply because something is law does not make it unquestionable or absolute, as often laws are amended, appealed and overruled.  Laws are not truths, are not perfect and are not supreme authorities on subjects.  So no, simply because a legislature used the term coat of arms does not make it a coat of arms.  Just as a legislature can not declare the sky colour is changed.  Or that a cat is a dog because they both have paws.  Or any other numerous possibilities of close-but-not-close-enoughs that one could fathom.

 
Deer Sniper
 
Avatar
 
 
Deer Sniper
Total Posts:  222
Joined  13-06-2008
 
 
 
16 April 2010 07:57
 

The thing is that a cat cannot function as a dog. But this can function as a coat of arms. It is bad heraldry I admit and as a Virginian I wish we had a traditional coat of arms with good heraldry and all normal parts ( shield, crest etc. ). But none the less a shield can be round, It can have a border ( Scotland ) , it can have the image of two people on it ( South Africa ) as for the wording on the shield, unfortunate and un heraldic but I am not sure that precludes its functioning as a coat of arms.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree and move on to discussing more attractive and traditional arms, deferring the question until Virginia adops more traditional and more attractive arms, Intentionally adopted, or there is a heraldic authority in Virginia or the U.S. to rule on it.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
16 April 2010 08:43
 

i’m still torn on this issue. on one hand i like the idea of a president marshaling his personal arms with a presidential one…speaking from a purely heraldic POV. however, speaking from a republican (small r intentional) POV i don’t want any president to have more power, or symbols of power than they actually do. i lean towards the it’s a bad idea party overall i think.

as to defacto arms of the office of the president, i’m afraid i don’t follow—could be it’s too early in a.m. here in Colorado and i’ve yet to have my coffee, but the difference is really minor as i see it and the arms themselves…are they not one and the same?

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
16 April 2010 09:11
 

As often is the case, it depends on your definition. If one strictly limits "arms" to what is displayed on a shield (or shield substitute such as a lozenge), then the arms are the same. But, Executive Order 9646 explicitly defines the "Coat of Arms of the President of the United States" as including the shield (the arms of the United States) upon a specified eagle, with crest and surrounded by circle of stars. A display missing one of these elements is not the presidential coat of arms.

I don’t think cats and dogs is a fair comparison. Heraldry is, after all, man-made. The definition of "arms" or "coat of arms" is neither scientific fact nor revealed truth and the terms could as easily be understood to comprehend all the elements of an achievement as the more limited definition. It is my impression (and I claim no more authority than that) that to the extent that the terms "arms" or coat of arms" is used in common parlance, it is the broader rather than the narrower understanding that is intended.

 

If heraldry were regulated by law in the United States, would it not be competent for the regulator to declare that different crests were sufficient to distinguish armorial achievements so as to defeat a claim of usurpation?

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
16 April 2010 12:11
 

this may be where i’m getting tripped up because i’m thinking of the arms as the shield alone especially in relation to being marshaled with personal arms. i know we’re talkin’ about a couple different things here, but i’m thinking that’s where i’m getting tripped up.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2010 13:07
 

I think we must concede to sovereigns the right to define what is a "coat of arms." Further, if we recall the principle that the shape of the shield is immaterial, I don’t see why the design of the obverse of the seal of Virginia cannot be legitimately defined as a coat of arms—it is merely displayed on a round shield rather than what we think of as a "shield-shaped" shield.

Applied to the issue of the Presidential arms, this principle would suggest that if the President (although not personally a sovereign) declares something to be the coat of arms of the President, it is the coat of arms of the President.

 

At the same time I agree with Xander that, in heraldic terms, the "Coat of Arms of the President of the United States" as defined by Executive Order 10860 are merely a particularly specific emblazonment of the arms of the United States. Indeed, since the core distinctive portion of any arms is the shield, one could argue that not only the Supreme Court and the State Department but also the Departments of Defense, Justice, and several other agencies also use the arms of the U.S. as the devices on their seals.

 

However, I’m not sure that it’s impossible to reconcile these two views.

 

The British have a similar issue—somewhat more fully thought through, I guess—with the different official emblazonments of the royal arms that are used for different purposes. The royal arms as used by HM Government—

http://www.flags.net/images/largeflags/UNKG1027.GIF

are different visually (although the same heraldically) as those used by HM herself—

http://www.flags.net/images/largeflags/UNKG1026.GIF

which are in turn different from the royal arms as used by individual departments of state—

http://www.fco.gov.uk/sitepack/layouts/xm_supplied/files/images/v2/FCO-Logo-Home.png

 

It seems reasonable to me to think of the formulation "coat of arms of the President" as a short form of "coat of arms of the United States as used by the President." Certainly the emblazonment is distinctive (the VP’s is similar but not quite the same—different color of clouds and stars in the crest and fewer stars encircling the eagle; the VP’s shield also uses a darker blue than the President’s. But the bottom line is that if I can look at an emblazonment and know reliably "that is the coat of arms of [the United States as used by] the President," it seems to me that what I am seeing is the President’s arms of office.