It seems to me that enough Americans would be willing to pay a branch of the Federal government to recognize/register/record their coat of arms for a fee, that it would be worthwhile to Washington to set up a department for that purpose. Would there be any reason for objection to this? Any constitutional restriction preventing it?
Caledonian;88314 wrote:
It seems to me that enough Americans would be willing to pay a branch of the Federal government to recognize/register/record their coat of arms for a fee, that it would be worthwhile to Washington to set up a department for that purpose. Would there be any reason for objection to this? Any constitutional restriction preventing it?
Other than the fact that the Constitution vests no such power in the federal government?
Have you worked out the math on how much such an office would have to charge to make such an office financially viable? How many people would have to pay for this service for which there is no requirement?
Joseph McMillan;88316 wrote:
Other than the fact that the Constitution vests no such power in the federal government?
Have you worked out the math on how much such an office would have to charge to make such an office financially viable? How many people would have to pay for this service for which there is no requirement?
The American government routinely spends millions/billions of dollars on far less laudable endeavors; at least something like an official department of heraldic registration would generate some revenue in return. Besides, if a country like South Africa can do it; I’m certain that it would not be beyond the means of the U.S. government.
You’re being a bit harsh Joe. Everybody on this board has speculated on what a US College of Arms would look like.
In this case he’s on pretty clear Constitutional ground. There’s nothing in the US Constitution that implies Congress can’t register Arms. It’s not an explicit power, but it’s pretty hard to run a government without identifying people and all a Registration of Arms does is link a particular Armorial identity to a particular individual. I doubt Congress could do anything to enforce these registrations, beyond possibly allowing anti-fraud law to apply to certain cases of usurpation.
As for costs, starting out it doesn’t actually have to cost the Feds anything. Grants cost a couple grand, so make the official US Registration fee $3,500. Put the head of the Army Institute of Heraldry in charge. All he has to do is approve blazons and keep a list of approved artists. He gets a check, says a blazon is heraldic, gives $2,000 to the Heraldic artist the Registree likes best, and uses $1,000 to hire a contractor with basic heraldic/genealogical knowledge to make sure the registree’s not trying to usurp the Dukes of Hamilton or something. The IoH keeps $250 for it’s budget, the rest goes to the General Fund.
Granted if he’s getting a new Registration like every day a more substantial government authority is necessary, but if that’s the case we’ve got a lot of fee money to spend, and we can probably increase the government’s profit margin by hiring staff artists and genealogists.
The major problem with this scheme, and all the others we’ve come up with, is not that they’re Unconstitutional, or particularly impractical. It’s that there’s a lack of political will to do anything about heraldry. Everybody knows a good bill has to die several times before becoming law, and nobody’s got the energy to write a damn bill in the first place, much less fight multiple losing battles to get it through.
Nick
Nick B II;88319 wrote:
You’re being a bit harsh Joe. Everybody on this board has speculated on what a US College of Arms would look like.
In this case he’s on pretty clear Constitutional ground. There’s nothing in the US Constitution that implies Congress can’t register Arms. It’s not an explicit power, but it’s pretty hard to run a government without identifying people and all a Registration of Arms does is link a particular Armorial identity to a particular individual. I doubt Congress could do anything to enforce these registrations, beyond possibly allowing anti-fraud law to apply to certain cases of usurpation.
As for costs, starting out it doesn’t actually have to cost the Feds anything. Grants cost a couple grand, so make the official US Registration fee $3,500. Put the head of the Army Institute of Heraldry in charge. All he has to do is approve blazons and keep a list of approved artists. He gets a check, says a blazon is heraldic, gives $2,000 to the Heraldic artist the Registree likes best, and uses $1,000 to hire a contractor with basic heraldic/genealogical knowledge to make sure the registree’s not trying to usurp the Dukes of Hamilton or something. The IoH keeps $250 for it’s budget, the rest goes to the General Fund.
Granted if he’s getting a new Registration like every day a more substantial government authority is necessary, but if that’s the case we’ve got a lot of fee money to spend, and we can probably increase the government’s profit margin by hiring staff artists and genealogists.
The major problem with this scheme, and all the others we’ve come up with, is not that they’re Unconstitutional, or particularly impractical. It’s that there’s a lack of political will to do anything about heraldry. Everybody knows a good bill has to die several times before becoming law, and nobody’s got the energy to write a damn bill in the first place, much less fight multiple losing battles to get it through.
Nick
Here are a few things that the U.S. government has paid for:
#1 A total of $3 million has been granted to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so that they can play video games such as World of Warcraft. The goal of this "video game research" is reportedly to study how "emerging forms of communication, including multiplayer computer games and online virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft and Second Life can help organizations collaborate and compete more effectively in the global marketplace."
#2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave the University of New Hampshire $700,000 this year to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
#3 $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.
#4 A professor at Stanford University received $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love. So far one of the key findings of this "research" is that the Internet is a safer and more discreet way to find same-sex partners.
#5 The National Science Foundation spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians "gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions."
#6 The National Institutes of Health spent approximately $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
#7 Approximately $1 million of U.S. taxpayer money was used to create poetry for the Little Rock, New Orleans, Milwaukee and Chicago zoos. The goal of the "poetry" is to help raise awareness on environmental issues.
#8 The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs spent $175 million during 2010 to maintain hundreds of buildings that it does not even use. This includes a pink, octagonal monkey house in the city of Dayton, Ohio.
#9 $1.8 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars went for a "museum of neon signs" in Las Vegas, Nevada.
#10 $35 million was reportedly paid out by Medicare to 118 "phantom" medical clinics that never even existed.
#11 The Conservation Commission of Monkton, Vermont got $150,000 from the federal government to construct a "critter crossing". Thanks to U.S. government money, the lives of "thousands" of migrating salamanders are now being saved.
#12 In California, one park received $440,000 in federal funds to perform "green energy upgrades" on a building that has not been used for a decade.
#13 $440,955 was spent this past year on an office for former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that he rarely even visits.
#14 One Tennessee library was given $5,000 in federal funds to host a series of video game parties.
#15 The U.S. Census Bureau spent $2.5 million on a television commercial during the Super Bowl that was so poorly produced that virtually nobody understood what is was trying to say.
#16 A professor at Dartmouth University received $137,530 to create a "recession-themed" video game entitled "Layoff".
#17 The National Science Foundation gave the Minnesota Zoo over $600,000 so that they could develop an online video game called "Wolfquest".
#18 A pizzeria in Iowa was given $60,000 to renovate the pizzeria’s facade and give it a more "inviting feel".
#19 The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave one enterprising group of farmers $30,000 to develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight "haycations".
#20 The National Institutes of Health was given $800,000 in "stimulus funds" to study the impact of a "genital-washing program" on men in South Africa.
There are IMO a number of practical problems to overcome, or to later cause us to regret the project if not oversome. Just a few:
* lack of heraldic expertise in the bureaucracy—
* finances part 1—if not at least financially neutral (i.e. break even) I can’t imagine it gainng any traction now
* finances part 2—how to keep the cost low enough to make registration accessible to all comers
* sheer volume part 1—the volume of existing arms we would need to avoid duplicating, and the practical difficulty (time & energy) of doing an armorial "patent search"
* sheer volume part 2—if it takes off, the potentially unmanageable number of registrations (and if it turns out to be a small number, support for the project won’t last…)
There are likely any number more; most of course, likely surmountable given sufficient time & energy - but then finances 1 & 2 get in the way.
I really wish I were wrong!—but that’s how it looks to me.
A nice dream….but probably not the demand. But imagine a vellum with the arms of the United States etc, and a vellum document style reflective of the Constitution. It could be look pretty amazing ! 
Steven, you list proves perfectly why the federal government shouldn’t get involved in heraldry.
Personnaly, I’d just be happy if the country had a budget…
Michael F. McCartney;88327 wrote:
There are IMO a number of practical problems to overcome, or to later cause us to regret the project if not oversome. Just a few:
* lack of heraldic expertise in the bureaucracy—
* finances part 1—if not at least financially neutral (i.e. break even) I can’t imagine it gainng any traction now
* finances part 2—how to keep the cost low enough to make registration accessible to all comers
* sheer volume part 1—the volume of existing arms we would need to avoid duplicating, and the practical difficulty (time & energy) of doing an armorial "patent search"
* sheer volume part 2—if it takes off, the potentially unmanageable number of registrations (and if it turns out to be a small number, support for the project won’t last…)
There are likely any number more; most of course, likely surmountable given sufficient time & energy - but then finances 1 & 2 get in the way.
I really wish I were wrong!—but that’s how it looks to me.
Apparently South Africa’s Bureau of Heraldry has found ways of overcoming the above obstacles. Are they really all that more competent and capable than America?
Caledonian;88318 wrote:
Besides, if a country like South Africa can do it; I’m certain that it would not be beyond the means of the U.S. government.
I’m not sure what "a country like" means, but South Africa has a heraldry authority because it’s a sovereign independent state. The Bureau of Heraldry is funded by the government, i.e. the taxpayer, as a branch of the National Archives (which, in turn is part of the Dept of Arts & Culture), and it recoups part of its costs by charging fees. Because it’s part of the Archives, it keeps its overheads and staff complement low by ‘lodging’ in the Archives head office building, and sharing the Archives’ switchboard, accounting, HR department, and other facilities.
Arthur Radburn;88349 wrote:
I’m not sure what "a country like" means, but South Africa has a heraldry authority because it’s a sovereign independent state. The Bureau of Heraldry is funded by the government, i.e. the taxpayer, as a branch of the National Archives (which, in turn is part of the Dept of Arts & Culture), and it recoups part of its costs by charging fees. Because it’s part of the Archives, it keeps its overheads and staff complement low by ‘lodging’ in the Archives head office building, and sharing the Archives’ switchboard, accounting, HR department, and other facilities.
My apologies if the tone of my message sounded dismissive in regard to South Africa as a country. My point was that the U.S. is held to be one of the world’s leading powers and should be capable of managing a concern that a much smaller country such as South Africa does quite competently. The United States has been an independent state (nation) since 1780’s and maintains quite an extensive National Archives with branches in several locations.
While it is a nice dream, I don’t see it happening any time soon, if ever. With the increase of interest in genealogy in the United States, there has also been an increase in the interest in heraldry. Unfortunately it’s usually a fly by interest that usually doesn’t go further than the nearest bucket shop. Our government has enough things to worry about without having to worry about heraldry grants. Lets try getting ourselves out of monumental debt first.
J. Stolarz;88353 wrote:
While it is a nice dream, I don’t see it happening any time soon, if ever. With the increase of interest in genealogy in the United States, there has also been an increase in the interest in heraldry. Unfortunately it’s usually a fly by interest that usually doesn’t go further than the nearest bucket shop. Our government has enough things to worry about without having to worry about heraldry grants. Lets try getting ourselves out of monumental debt first.
Providing the government with an additional means of generating revenue would be one step toward that, however modest it might be. It seems to me that an organization such as the American Heraldry Society would be an excellent lobby for seeking the passage of a bill to establish a legitimate heraldic authority here in the United States, and such would be a worthwhile endeavor for the society to engage in.
The question would be, is there enough demand for it that the government branch would stay in the black and not go red? Knowing the way they seem to blow through money on ridiculous things (As proven in your earlier post), it’s hard to believe that they would.
J. Stolarz;88355 wrote:
The question would be, is there enough demand for it that the government branch would stay in the black and not go red? Knowing the way they seem to blow through money on ridiculous things (As proven in your earlier post), it’s hard to believe that they would.
I may not be the best judge of that, as my views on the subject are naturally biased; however something like an an official governmental office of heraldry would give the United States a bit more sophistication and dignity which I believe many of the country’s citizens (myself included) would be directly supportive of.
imo. Mike is correct and Joe is correct and Joshua is correct.
as for me, being a good old Colorado boy, i am never much a fan of the government taking on more than is specifically laid out for them to do—and i find the cop-out of ‘it isn’t expressly forbidden’ ridiculous and the mindset that has caused all parties to spend this nation into here-to-fore un-imagined debts.
the idea that the "revenue" created by such a bureau would help to offset that debt, as made by someone i forget who, is utter non-sense. i don’t know the numbers but i guarantee you that the cost for registrations, grants and matriculations would have to meet, or exceed, our friends in other European nations not withstanding the good people of South Africa.
now, do i like the idea of the government setting up laws recording arms for protection? yes. do i think that will ever happen? no. just as Joshua points out there simply isn’t enough people interested in heraldry to make it viable, which brings us back to Joe’s and Mike’s points.
i agree with Andy that such a document would be beautiful. and i agree with others that some kind of federal protection would be nice/valued (like a law preventing unauthorized usurpation/use of someone’s arms). but, like someone else wrote i don’t see a backbone in the political process and i don’t see a financial viability existing due to the numbers of Americans who are interested in heraldry.
and as Kathy said, i’d just like to see them get their current mess under control before they start meddling with heraldry, which as Mike points out very few of them, if any, would have any serious herald knowledge.