Another Dangerous Precedent
Posted by Mad Rocket Scientist | Filed under Guest Authors, Idiot Legislation
Recently this bill was brought to my attention, H.R. 5872, because it passed the house with only 8 people voting NO. Overall, this bill is pretty harmless. What it does is it directs the Treasury to issue 350,000 commemorative US $1 dollar silver coins to honor the US Boy Scouts first 100 years.
Big whoop, right?
Each coin will sell for $10, with all of the proceeds going directly to the US Boy Scouts. This, I have a problem with.
Now before I get flamed, let me explain. First off, I was a Boy Scout, way back when, made it to Life Scout, got lots of Merit Badges and Skill Awards, and was the Camp Cook. I loved being in the Scouts and had a blast. Of course, this was also before the Religious Nuts got a hold of the Scouts and decided that politicizing the Scouts for God and Heterosexuality was more important than just giving boys a place to be boys and burn off all their youthful energy.
However, my disappointment with the direction the Scouts have taken aside, using an act of congress to spend money to mint coins, coins that are legal tender, for public sale in order to raise money for a private organization is not what I pay those idiots to do! And that is not even taking into account the attitude that the Scouts are now a defacto religious organization. Even that aside, why is our government asking the Treasury to act as a fund raiser for the US Boy Scouts? Why not the Girl Scouts, or the Boys & Girls Clubs, or Big Brothers & Big Sisters, or etc?
Are the US Boy Scouts that hard up for cash? Do the Girl Scouts get overlooked because Cookie Sales are a better fund raiser than Popcorn and Pizza (or is it because the Girl Scouts got smart and stayed away from politicizing themselves and damaging their public image)? Does an organization serving children need to make it to their first centennial before they get a coin and the millions of dollars it will generate?
What Say You All?
Tags: fiscal irresponsibility, government theft
Help Support SimonJester.info!
May 20th, 2008
The coins will likely sell for $40 or so. The $10 is a surcharge added to the price of each coin, which the boy scouts will receive.
May 20th, 2008
User Coin Collecting (previous comment) has a link to a more detailed write-up about the BSA coin.
May 20th, 2008
Oh my God! Congress has passed something in favor of the Boy Scouts. The world as we know it is sure to end now! Seriously, when are you anti-religion,anti-anything moral types going to get a life? You should be spending your time and effort pushing for better education for our kids, lower gas prices, and keeping jobs at home. These are things most Americans of all types are concerned about. Not these stupid little wedge issues. Perhaps if you came back to the concerns of the moderate, we would’nt get leaders like Bush or Clinton(Bill)and
Rush Limbaugh will go out of business trying to aggrevate you liberals.
May 20th, 2008
Oh noesss, we’re LIBRULS!!!2111!!
May 20th, 2008
sigh…
Crossed Eagle, you missed the point entirely.
May 20th, 2008
Dear Crossed Eagle:
Have you READ the rest of this site?
We are not anti-religion, even though some of us just think the concept of a universal god is silly. But we do not propose making it go away.
We are not anti-anything moral either, however. Morals can come from any number of teachers, and we here generally share the values of our cultures. At the very least, we do not presume to tell someone else that they MUST follow our flavor of morality.
If anything, we are just what the title graphic says: anti-nanny statists. The BSA is a fine example of a good idea that has been mis-used, mis-managed, and maligned. The BSA is a fine example of what happens when that good idea (the idea that boys and young men can and should be taught skills and values to help them develop into good MEN) is beaten about the head and shoulders by nannys who think that teaching boys how to make a fire or tie a knot is somehow damaging as well as by those who think that a collection of boys out on an overnight camping trip is a buffet. So, if you think the issue here is some beef about the BSA being used by us as a wedge issue, you have to understand that is simply Not. The. Case.
The issue the MRS brings up is about the Federal Government using its offices to raise money for the aforementioned private entity. That is not an enumerated power in the constitution. Just like it isn’t the job of the federal government to lower gas prices (which they can do only by de-limiting private enterprise), educate our kids (numerous arguments about how well or not that experiment is proceeding), or even to keep jobs from going overseas (you know, where the tax burden is smaller).
The very idea of the United States government choosing to have what amounts to a pledge drive for a private entity is the issue; whether that entity be the BSA, the LDS church, NBC television, the Met, or even the Freedom Tower. If the Mint want to make a coin to commemorate anything, anyone, or anywhere I’m fine with that. But you know what, they can just make it a regular old dollar coin and put in circulation. This law, indeed the entire commemorative program, is far foul of the limited government intervention the Founders intended.
May 21st, 2008
As I understand the process, the Fed gets paid to issue the coin; there is no net cost to the Feds (us) in the process.
MRS, did you forget the part of the oath that says, ” and I will do my duty to God and my Country”?
That has always been a part of the BSA.
May 21st, 2008
Jubal
The Fed gets paid if the coin sells (which it likely will, 350K coins is a limited run and the coins will likely have value to many). I’m not concerned about the cost, I’m concerend about the Fed deciding that it is their job to raise $3.5 million for the BSA. If they do it for the BSA, can we expect similar action for other PRIVATE organizations?
As for the Oath, the whole time I was in the BSA (about 8 years), reciting the oath was the most attention we ever gave the topic of religion. And the Oath is rather non-specific regarding which flavor or dogma of God to follow.
May 21st, 2008
I agree that other than the recitation, not much attention was paid to it; with the exception of when the Scoutmaster was attempting to take advantage of a “teachable moment”.
Why would we care if the Fed uses the process to enable a group to raise money? As long as it does not impact taxpayers, I am not seeing your point.
I take much more exception of the Gov’t doling out tax dollars to ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc.
May 21st, 2008
I believe the Constitutional process has been used correctly in this situation. The lobbyists lobbied and the lawmakers voted. Nothing more constitutional than that. If the government can have special programs earmarked for minorities,which I beleive is discrimination pure and simple,(I used to work for DOE and the educational programs and set assides were unbelievable), then let the BSA get some of the gravy! Either you are for us or against us.Let’s put the rhetoric aside for a moment and be glad the good guys won,for the time being! The government should recognize that the BSA is valuable to our society by it’s principles. It is always in the government’s and the people’s best interest to encourage
young people to be lawful obedient citizens. Even atheists and agnostics benefit from people following moral rules and conduct codes.
I too,believe it or not, have read the Constitution of the United States, and I believe that it is a living document. The framers of it created a guideline to follow in setting up government and how laws were to be made and applied. If this Coin issue is unconstitutional then why don’t you challenge it and a court will decide if it is.( also a guarantee in the Constitution of the United States).
If not for that pesky phase “promote the general Welfare”, (This is found in the Preamble by the way), then your case may be valid against public education, job outsourcing, and controling”out of control Capitalism”.
I don’t believe the framers of the Constitution believed that America should be one of winner takes all as unrestricted free enterprise values. Religious convictions, not Karl Marx, helped to create laws to prevent the less fortunate from being further oppressed and gave them a chance to pull themselves up by the “boot straps”.
May 21st, 2008
Jubal, Crossed Eagle
I have no problem with the BSA. Even if I disagree with their stance on Gay Leaders and the focus on faith, I still think organizations such as the BSA serve the greater good by helping to make boys into men. As for the focus on faith, I just looked in my 1919 copy of the Handbook for Boys and the only mentions made are that a boy is true to his country and his God, and a section written by Teddy Roosevelt that says boys should practice the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule. Not a whole lot of bible thumping there.
I don’t think the fed should be handing out tax money to any private entity. Such decisions of public generosity should be made at the state and local level. I don’t think the fed should be supporting Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the BSA, or any other private entity with federal tax dollars. I also don’t think the fed.gov should be using federal employees to raise money for a private organization, even if the net loss to the fed.gov is close to zero.
This is not what the fed.gov is for!
As of 2006, the BSA was listed as the twelfth largest Non-Profit in the US, with $665 million in revenue, so I fail to see why they need an extra $3.5 million.
And finally, the whole dustup with the BSA not allowing Gay Scout Leaders was something I supported, not because I agree with them, but because they are a Private organization that does not accept public money and thus they have the right to make that decision without the fed.gov telling them no. This bill strikes me as a round-about way for the fed.gov to pass money to the BSA free and clear. If the fed.gov wants to issue a coin for the BSA, fine, but the BSA does not get a cut. If the BSA wants to use collectible coins to raise money, they can contact the Franklin Mint.
Oh, and right now, no suing is needed, because the bill has only passed the House, the Senate has not (to my knowledge) voted on it.
May 21st, 2008
Point one: the lobbyists lobbied to get something done (prohibiting the sales of all alcoholic beverages inside the United States) and the lawmakers and voters voted to make it so, and it still took an amendment to the constitution to enable the power. One that was eventually cast aside, BTW via another amendment.
Point two: you say that government programs within the DOE are discriminatory in the next breath.
Point three: you then say let the BSA “get some of the gravy” indicating that you seem to be fine with that since the PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION YOU LIKE IS THE BENEFICIARY.
Conclusion: you only want organizations (and by extension laws or regulations) you agree with to be fed from the public trough or enacted by the federal government.
The next half of your little rant up there is simply far too absurd to be taken seriously. If you are an example of the Dept. of Ed. our future is more bleak than I feared. “Provide for the general welfare” doesn’t mean to help private organizations, regardless of how wonderful or service oriented or even how charitable they may be. It means instead to provide an atmosphere for the entire population to be prosperous, be able to engage in commerce, and to be reasonably safe from in their homes and businesses.
The US Constitution is a living document only in that it can be changed by the process of making amendments. The meaning of the words inside the document Do. Not. Change. We are finally lucky enough to have a Supreme Court that is starting to understand that concept.
As for the Founders intent, Benjamin Franklin said it was better to let a man be uncomfortable in poverty, so that he would work to get out it. The laws of our country, the Constitution upon which they are based, and the framework for changing them are based not on helping the less fortunate, but on enabling all men (created equal, you know) the chance to pursue life liberty and happiness. NOWHERE does it say he is guaranteed to catch them. I almost hesitate to mention the fact that a minority of the population wanted to rebel from England, but rather wanted the redress of certain grievances including that ‘pesky’ taxation without representation issue. It seems that the Founders really had a problem with a government that wouldn’t allow them to conduct honest business with honest merchants, pay honest taxes, and get an honest voice in their own governance. Hmm, maybe they were capitalists after all. Diest capitalists, maybe, but capitalists nonetheless.
Since you seem to be so utterly and completely misinformed on the documents you purport to understand, I won’t bother with asking if you understand or if I need to draw pictures. You, Crossed Eagle, have only to respond to two questions of mine:
With or against you in in exactly what? Who is the “us” you reference?
If you don’t yet understand that we are FOR the citizens of this country taking their government back, you haven’t read the rest of the site. If you haven’t yet realized that we are AGAINST our government at every level eroding through dribs and drabs the ideals and freedoms guaranteed by our founding documents, you haven’t read enough of the site yet. We do indeed believe that the BSA is a fine organization for the most part and certainly believe that the teaching of boys and young men to grow up into responsible members of society is a fine goal. We may disagree with strategies and tactics, but their goals and ours overlap to some large extent.
The original point exists and is as plain as the Washington Monument: no ethical interpretation of the Constitution should allow the government to raise money for a PRIVATE organization. If the BSA are this week, does Planned Parenthood get one next week? Or the Klan? How about we just ask the Mint to make one for The Line Is Here, since we also stand for independence in thought and deed, patriotism for our country, self-reliance, personal and professional integrity, and helping little old ladies cross the street.
Jubal, sir, I respectfully invite you to look closely at your comments and decide whether or not they cross check for logic.
May 21st, 2008
I’m willing to concede that the reps. were playing to the crowd in passing the bill. However, don’t we elect them to represent our interests. Apparently a large majority felt that supporting the BSA was not only in the country’s interest but their political future as well. The boys and leaders of the BSA are constantly working in our national parks, decorating military cemeteries with flags, building play ground equipment,etc,etc, etc, which is aiding America to the benefit of all in most cases. Yet the BSA is under constant attack from groups who see the BSA as an American icon of acceptability. Answer me this, if Gay scouts and leaders truly wanted an organization like the BSA, then why don’t they create the Gay Scouts of America? Perhaps instead of Eagle Scout they could seek to earn the Flamingo Scout award.(Okay,I’m joking it was too tempting for me,sorry). But you get the idea. They care only about making homosexuality acceptable instead of helping youth and hurt funding for the non-homo scouts.
Handing out money to a private entity is probably a bad idea, but once the cat is out of the bag in the case of other organizations,why shouldn’t the BSA get their chance? I would be willing to bet the it will pass the Senate also and be signed by Bush. So you may get your chance at suing.
May 21st, 2008
Ted, I’m not sure who exactly we are supposed to be taking our country from as you mention. If you mean taking it away from corporate interests and that of the rich and powerful and how they buy our politicians then I agree. If you mean the people who are put into powerful positions either political or corporate because of who their daddy is or who’s their uncle’s golfing buddy, I agree. Meritocracy just like socialism sounds great in theory but seldom works in the real world. It’s funny but I thought that America was about what the individual could do to improve themselves instead of some type of inherited priveledge as illustrated by the British Monarchy. You probably believe that those who were suffering in poverty before FDR’s social programs should have just earned their way out of it. That’s nice if you have a relative who hires kin. Let us not forget the lessons of the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution, and the start of the Nazi regime post WWI. If the people are starving, can’t find a way to support themselves, and are not educated enough so that they follow any charismatic figure that “feels their pain”, then the ruling class will have some angry perhaps violent masses to deal with. Mr. Bronson you have yet to learn that life is about balance as it is with our form of government. You can’t have a total free enterprise system without regulations and you can’t have a socialist system without hope of bettering one’self. Besides, I don’t think Ben Franklin ever met Karl Marx or Kenneth Lay(Enron).
May 21st, 2008
I am surprised that you could actually make that comment but still call us here at The Line a bunch of liberals. That actually seems to written by a different person. Nevertheless, you may be surprised by what we agree on, but I am baffled by what you THINK I believe.
Wilson was a fascist (by actions,the actual oppression of the populace, if not name,), Harding was a failure, Coolidge was one of us and his presidency is marked by economic growth, Hoover’s policies led the Depression to a deeper trough than the rest of the world suffered, and FDR was a socialist whose policies led to a much longer Depression than the rest of the planet suffered. Socialist policies Do. Not. Work. They never have. Anywhere they have been tried.
Former Soviet states are experiencing phenomenal growth by adopting lean, non-interfering governments and flat tax rates. People who were oppressed and poor under the Soviets are prospering under a government that keeps its nose out of business affairs other than to make sure the law is being followed. And the laws are there to protect the population and reward industrious people rather than put obstacles in their way. Somehow I doubt that all those folks are getting rich because their uncle owns the factory. Or building a home because their dad was the local party boss. Your line of
is exactly right. Somehow within the context of your argument, you yourself have forgotten that.
Franklin would have had Marx trying to prove his theories until Marx broke down weeping under Franklin’s superior philosophy while Ken Lay would have been horsewhipped by Franklin and his peers on the town square. That he never met either of the two is immaterial to the discussion, however. The backbone of his philosophy is still sound to this day, regardless of temporal paradox.
As for the angry masses and the corruption of government: the latter leads to the former. Every. Time. The very point of this post, nay, this website, is that many people are very angry at how are our fed.gov is not following the rules laid down by the Founders. We are very angry about capricious acts, policies, laws, regulations, taxes, and pronouncement from on high by our hirelings in D.C. that are nothing more than self-aggrandizement, pork, or obstacles to the very pursuits that we are contracted with them, in good faith, to see carried forth.
You are trying to pick a fight, and every time you someone kicks you in the nuts, you choose a different tack. What remains is that you have yet to answer my questions:
was your statement.
With or against you in in exactly what? Who is the “us” you reference?
You are possibly confused, since logic doesn’t play a very large in our educational system anymore, so when you get your answers together, feel free to email them to me.
May 22nd, 2008
MRS stated in part, “I don’t think the fed should be handing out tax money to any private entity.”
I do not believe the Fed is handing out tax money, in fact, I can make the case that the program actually reduces Fed cost, in that if they are paid to produce the coin, then what they are paid offsets what their cost is. If the Fed would have had to pay the employees in any case and the Fed is reimbursed for the employee cost, that is a net savings to the Fed.
Ted,
I went back and re-read my comment and I am missing what you apparently saw. I am always ready to be instructed and I promise I will not take it personally. If I have erred in my logic then I need that pointed out to me.
The only thing that I probably should have added to my post is that while I object to ACLU, etc. receiving actual tax dollars from the Fed, I would have no grounds to object if they cut the same type of deal with the Feds as the BSA is on the verge of doing.
May 22nd, 2008
Jubal
I know the fed is not handing out tax money, and I know the coin issue is a near zero sum game (I a, certain there will be some loss for this, but not any significant amount). I know that the cost of buying the coin should nearly balance the cost of making it.
My issue is that the BSA has always stood as an organization that raises funds privately, through member actions (dues, fund raising activities, etc.) or corporate partnerships (selling Trails End Products). The fact that they raise funds privately, and do not accept aid from the fed.gov, is one of the reasons I supported their desire to exclude homosexuals, even if I disagreed with the idea. They don’t accept government assistance, then they get to ignore certain government rules that they don’t agree with.
This coin issue seems to me to be a way for the fed.gov to try to pass up to $3.5 million to the BSA without the BSA having to do a damn thing for it. And if the coin does not sell well, then the fed.gov will be spending tax money if the mint can not sell enough to recover it’s expenses (read that link I provided in my first comment).
This is NOT what we pay the fed.gov to do!
I don’t even like the fact that the post office has a postage stamp for Breast Cancer that costs extra, with the extra going to support research, and my mom has breast cancer! The fed.gov is not here to raise money for private groups. I don’t care if it is direct tax money, or using tax money to run the show with the hope that the fed.gov makes it’s investment back.
May 22nd, 2008
Could those of you supporting this Federal program show me where the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to give a kick back (for that is what it is) to a private organization, no matter how estimable that organization might be?
Article, Section and Paragraph, if you would.
Before anyone starts, this is not “coining money”. If the US Government wanted to issue a commemorative series of coins for the BSA (like the USPS does with stamps), that is their right under Article 1, Section 8 (Enumerated Powers). However, the power to “coin money” does NOT include the right to share that revenue with private groups. As was said, if the BSA wants to issue coins as a fund-raising method, then have the nation of Liberia or the Franklin Mint do so. It is not the job of the Federal Government.
And the Constitution is no more “alive” than is your average mortgage paperwork. It is a legal contract between the Citizens of the United States and the Government of the United States, and the words used have specific definitions.
(For example, I am amazed that anyone could misunderstand “shall not be infringed”.)
May 22nd, 2008
MRS.
I went to the link and read the article and the comments.
The article is explicit in that the Feds recover their costs prior to any $$ being sent to any organization that has a commemorative coin issued. So, there are no expenditures of Fed $$.
I understand your point that the Gov’t ought not be in the business of providing this type of service to anyone.
Given that the Gov’t does, in fact, provide this service to many organizations, it does not seem to me to be out of line.
There are a rather large number of issues that the Gov’t takes on that are larger and more egregious than this one. So I will pick my battles and let you pick yours.
Ted,
Did my last post cover your concern regarding my potential lack of logic, or am I still not seeing what you are seeing?
May 22nd, 2008
Irrelevant. It is NOT the Federal Government’s job to do fund raising for private groups.
Oh, so because the Government oversteps its legally-defined boundaries on a regular basis, we should just let it go? Let us suppose it turns out that the Government is arresting and confining people for no apparent reason, and ignoring the resultant Habeus rulings. As long as they are doing it routinely, you’re okay with it?
Usurping the power of the citizen, and violating the Constitution by overstepping its boundaries isn’t important enough for you?
What is, might one ask? Kvetching about “illegal wars of imperialism”?
May 22nd, 2008
ANNOUNCEMENT:
Crossed Eagle is drooling, sub-literate, proto-simian and is now on the IGNORE list. Disagreeing is one thing, always perfectly acceptable. Personal attacks are something else altogether, and this is the standard response.
That is all.
May 22nd, 2008
Jubal, sir. You have always been unfailingly polite, and I appreciate it. I do not wish the following to be taken as a personal attack:
You discovered the flaw. Then corrected it in the sense that you are now at least self consistent. The flaw was in your determination that it would be ok for one private group to get money while saying another could not. Who gets to decide; some functionary in a civil service job at the Mint, or the oh, so non-political hirelings we sent to the Congress and Senate? You corrected it by saying, eventually, that you wouldn’t care if the ACLU got money via the same program.
Now if I can just get you to realize that the program itself is unconstitutional….
May 22nd, 2008
Drumwaster,
Here is the relevant portion of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
What that means is that Congress has the power to coin money. The coin in question is reputed to be legal tender, therefore Congress has the power to strike the coin.
The second point is that Congress has the power to “make all laws which shall be neccessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”.
That means that if, in this instance, Congress passes a law to mint a legal tender coin, and to pass some of the money realized from the sale of the coin, it is in fact, Constitutional.
Ted,
I thought that might be your objection, which is why I clarified it. I have a bad habit of not putting all of my thought processes down on my way to posting. See the foregioing as to why i think that the program would be considered Constitutional. I would prefer that the Congress would not do this, but I think it is clear that they have the power to do so. again, I do not take good criticism personally. It would rob me of an opportunity to grow and understand if I did so.
Drumwaster,
I do not appreciate your taking my words out of context, particularly when they were addressed to someonelse. every one starts out at 100% with me, and can go on to earn a lower score, depending on their behavior. I don’t know what the rules are on this site, byt my personal rules are, you get three chances to be polite. If and when you fail to do so i kill file you and will not be bothered to reply in the future.
May 22nd, 2008
And to set the value thereof, he smilingly agreed. I pointed out above that sharing that revenue with private groups is NOT covered.
I agree with the first part of that, but there is nothing about sharing the profits (and it is a profit, since – with the exception of the penny – it costs less to mint the coin or print the currency than the face value of same) with private individuals or even large groups of them.
If you think I’m being less than polite, I can only urge you to relax just a bit, since nothing I said was remotely insulting. If you cannot see that the program you are advocating is a violation of the Constitution, for no other reason than you like the group receiving the benefit, than perhaps I should refrain from speaking to you in the future, as you have a blind spot I cannot help you with.
One can only hope that you grow into the wisdom that was so much a part of your namesake.
May 22nd, 2008
Drumwaster,
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
What part of the foregoing do you not understand.
May 22nd, 2008
Jubal
My bad, I misread part of that, twice even (time to get the eyes checked again?).
Still, the power to mint coins != the duty to use the proceeds to benefit a singluar group. I don’t have a problem with the fed.gov minting coins to help pay off fed.gov debt, but I can not support an effort to raise money for any private group (and especially one that does not need it).
And yes, this is just a little thing, but it is by the little things that we lose the big things.
BTW folks, just saw Indy IV, not as good as the first, but not bad, especially if you appraoch the movie as if it had been filmed in the year it is supposed to have happened. Worth the price of a matinee.
May 22nd, 2008
Drumwaster,
I have never said that I agree with the program, only that it is, as far as I can see, constitutional.
May 23rd, 2008
Drumwaster, it’s right there in the beginning – in the pre-amble – which provides both the overarching impetus for the document, as well as several specific listings of “values” for the Founders:
My second son is almost through with scouting – and so I’ve been on many, many multi-day (sometimes multi-week) forays away from home.
And if getting out of the house for extended periods of time on a regular basis isn’t the absolute BEST way to insure domestic tranquility, I don’t know what is.
(Please all note: we have had gay dads participating in scouting ever since I started, openly and without any fear that our sons will all want to stay in their tents or that our scarves will turn paisley. The problem, if there is one, lies with the National Headquarters types, who make Grand Pronouncements and disseminate Moral Guidance in a way that makes everyone else think they’re speaking for us (or even, at times, to us.) There’s absolutely NO pressure on any local scouting program to exclude gays, pity gays, denigrate gays, or even make all the gay guys stay in their own gay tent. What it comes down to is, your local “scouting” is run by your kid’s friend’s dad (or mom), and, if they’re not unreconstructed bigots, neither is their program.)
May 23rd, 2008
This word(s) “Domestic Tranquility”. I do not think that it means what you think it means.
The opposite of Domestic Tranquility is Domestic Insurrection. That’s a hint.
Once again, what if the group were (say) NAMBLA or some other group you might not be so supportive of? Would you still argue that the Government has a right to independently subsidize such groups by issuing coinage? Or that such things would “insure domestic tranquility”? (I’m sure that some of those Marlon Brando Look-Alikes would be considerably more tranquil after the Federal cash kickback, but not me…)