Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Personally I think all the money should be used to honor presidents. Hamilton gets a pass simply because he founded the whole bank system.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think I asked this when this originally came up, but is MLK on any of your notes/coins, and if not, why not?

According to the CBC, he is getting a spot on the back of the $5 when it comes up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/harriet-tubman-us-20-bill-1.3544809

 Ouze wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think I asked this when this originally came up, but is MLK on any of your notes/coins, and if not, why not?

A.) No
B.) The accurate answer to this would label me a SJW, obviously. Suffice it to say that we still have 3 states that refuse to recognize the federally mandated day commemorating his birth, instead honoring confederate general Robert E. Lee. Because this is America in 2016.

It does sound like the next $5 will at least have a partial reference to MLK:

The Treasury also said that a new $5 bill will honor two important American events that happened at the Lincoln Memorial: Marian Anderson's 1939 performance on the steps and Martin Luther King's 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Personally I think all the money should be used to honor presidents. Hamilton gets a pass simply because he founded the whole bank system.

We also have Benjamin.

Who always looks like he is judging you when he sees what you are spending your $100 bill on.

There are lots of important historical figures and people will always have their leanings but this choice overall is fine.

 d-usa wrote:
We also have Benjamin.

Who always looks like he is judging you when he sees what you are spending your $100 bill on.

I always thought it was a detached bemusement. Or, as someone else put it more eleoquently:



It's only right that we continue to honor one of forefathers and early pioneer of not only American freedom but also of the precursor to internet trolling (#3).

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Personally I think all the money should be used to honor presidents. Hamilton gets a pass simply because he founded the whole bank system.

Expect we've never done that in the past and will most likely continue to not do it in the future. We've always had bank notes that feature people that weren't Presidnet and quite a few that didn't even have people on them.

Yeah, I forgot about Ben Franklin. I guess I should have said "founding fathers get a pass". Whoops. I mean, they did make this its own country.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Yeah, I forgot about Ben Franklin. I guess I should have said "founding fathers get a pass". Whoops. I mean, they did make this its own country.

Historically, I think we've had more non-presidents on currency than presidents.

I don't know if this is good or bad for America, but I don't think that politicians should be displayed on currency, no matter what the country is. Place there war heroes, scientists or men of art.

I think this is a good idea, as long as Tubman isn't giving me the stink eye for blowing my $20s on stupid gak.

Finally, an avowed 2nd Amendment Republican is given the recognition she deserves!

 Ouze wrote:
A.) No
B.) The accurate answer to this would label me a SJW, obviously. Suffice it to say that we still have 3 states that refuse to recognize the federally mandated day commemorating his birth, instead honoring confederate general Robert E. Lee. Because this is America in 2016.

Ease down sunshine. I didn't accuse you of nuthin'. Well not here anyway.

Your country is weird. I mean our leaders can't stop deposing one another (on both sides of politics), but you really are a bunch'a weirdos fixating on the strangest (and often most innocuous) things.

MLK should'a been on your notes (well, one of them anyway) a long time ago.

Still, could be worse. You could have done to your $20 what we're about to do to our $5.



Look at that eyesore running down the middle on both sides.

You're just jealous because of our strategic location near Canada.


Canada, so far from God, so close to the United States. *

MLK should'a been on your notes (well, one of them anyway) a long time ago.

Interestingly, there is an argument that has arisen over the Tubman $20, that has great merit. Its argued that putting real heroes of the Civil Rights movement, and fething saints like Tubman on common notes is frankly insulting to their memory. While I disagree, its a fair argument.

I'd be very cool with an MLK bank note. of course I'd be cool with a Kermit the Frog bank note, so my views might not be so great.

I think that's nice, never liked Jackson anyway. I, personally, wanted Elinor Roosevelt, but I'm biased.

It's normally considered an honour to be put on a banknote.

Who proposed the argument that it's an insult?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's normally considered an honour to be put on a banknote.

Who proposed the argument that it's an insult?

Its on other website discussion boards.

Hmm. Not a very reliable souce. At your age you ought to know that DakkaDakka is the true source of all wisdom.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Still, could be worse. You could have done to your $20 what we're about to do to our $5.




Look at that eyesore running down the middle on both sides.

What are they? They look like bacteria to me!

LordofHats wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
And the President and Congress are not obligated to enforce the rulings of the Supreme Court, since judicial review is simply a legal precedent and not a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Federal Judiciary.

Enumerated powers are not the end of government authority; just Congressional authority. So yeah. Judicial Review isn't an enumerated power, but that really has nothing to do with anything since only Congress has enumerated powers. A Congress/President who ignores the ruling of the Supreme Court is by definition in violation of the Constitution. The ability of those bodies to effectively ignore the court is a fundamental flaw in the system*, not carte blanche to ignore the court. At that point, you should be extremely afraid, because we have a word for people who do as they please and don't give a gak; tyrant.

Um, no. Congress isn't the only branch limited by constitutionally enumerated powers. The Executive and Judicial Branches are also limited in that regard. And no, since the Judiciary was never granted the power of judicial review as an enumerated power in the Constitution, they don't have the authority to dictate from the bench. It's not unconstitutional for the other two branches to refuse to carry out a Supreme Court ruling.

And when it comes to the Federal Government and the three branches, enumerated powers are where it's supposed to end. Period. All other powers are reserved for the "several States". But we've become so used to an overbearing Federal Government abusing the Supremacy Clause and Implied Powers Clause, that people don't understand how it's supposed to work anymore.

And you talk about tyrants, and yet you are fine with nine un-elected donkey-caves legislating from a courtroom, and hold the mistaken belief that the Executive isn't limited by the Constitution with unique powers enumerated to the president? And by the way, it isn't a "flaw" in the system, as you put it. It's called "checks and balances", a safeguard against the very tyranny you're concerned about.

sebster wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The Federal Reserve's track record since 1912 proved him right long after his death.

Oh yes, that period of 1912 to 2016 in which the stable currency provided by the Federal Reserve saw the US rise to becoming the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. What a stuff up that's been.

Oh yes, you mean the steady devaluing of the currency since 1933, move to total fiat money via repeal of the gold and silver standards, allowing for "easy money" to encourage piss poor investments among banks and brokers during a false boom in the 1920's (ultimately a major cause of the Stock Market Crash in 1929 and run on banks in 1933), the constant cycle of fragile bubble economies driven by said fiat money, rampant debt and rampant borrowing by the Federal Government encouraged by the Federal Reserve system,and a semi private corporation (Federal Reserve) with private banks on the Federal Reserve Board deciding economic policy of the country? According to the U.S. Constitution, the House of Representatives hold the purse strings, since they are accountable to the people. Private bankers and political appointee are not, and it's a conflict of interests for private banks (some of them American branches/subsidiaries of foreign banks) to be involved in such.

In the end, what used to be "good as gold" is trailing behind foreign currencies, including EU funny money. It has been for a long time now. The Federal Reserve Note, originally intended to facilitate smooth and stable medium of exchange in the private sector to prevent another "panic" like we had in 1907, was intrinsically worthless then. And it's even more worthless now.

But it doesn't matter in the long run. Hard currency will be obsolete is 20-30 years anyway. So it's all a moot point.

And for the record, the Federal Reserve Note didn't become standard currency until the Roosevelt administration, some twenty years after the fact.

Congress, if they performed their duties as they were supposed to, could've settled on standardized currency policy without a central bank. But instead, they created a monster to do it for them.

I have no words for just how wrong that was...

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Um, no. Congress isn't the only branch limited by constitutionally enumerated powers. The Executive and Judicial Branches are also limited in that regard. And no, since the Judiciary was never granted the power of judicial review as an enumerated power in the Constitution, they don't have the authority to dictate from the bench. It's not unconstitutional for the other two branches to refuse to carry out a Supreme Court ruling.

Ok. That's a nice theory. Perhaps you should inform the government that they've been doing it wrong for the past 200+ years? I'm sure they would be quite surprised by this fact.

PS: if the other two branches can ignore supreme court rulings then you don't have checks and balances. A court whose rulings are treated as no more than polite suggestions that everyone is free to ignore has no power and might as well not exist at all. You can not simultaneously argue that checks and balances are necessary and judicial review is not.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Um, no. Congress isn't the only branch limited by constitutionally enumerated powers.

Enumerated Powers are those laid out in Section 1 Article 8, which is all about Congress.

And no, since the Judiciary was never granted the power of judicial review as an enumerated power in the Constitution, they don't have the authority to dictate from the bench.

They in fact do. They've been expressing it for the past 200+ years.

It's not unconstitutional for the other two branches to refuse to carry out a Supreme Court ruling.

That's a Catch 22 situation, and a giant legal black hole. The only body empowered to determine Constitutionality is the Courts, but if the other two branches are ignoring the Courts, well that kind of defeats the whole purpose. Of course once you're in that situation, you're probably looking at a complete break down of government.

And when it comes to the Federal Government and the three branches, enumerated powers are where it's supposed to end.

Even the Founding Fathers didn't believe that, and I'm indulging your misuse of a term explained in Middle School civics.

All other powers are reserved for the "several States".

Yeah, but that hasn't really stopped the Government from redefining its role and purpose. The Constitution is a living document, not the word of god from on high.

And you talk about tyrants, and yet you are fine with nine un-elected donkey-caves legislating from a courtroom,

Apparently you don't know what the word Tyranny means either. You do realize that all these fancy terms actually need defining right? What does "Necessary and Proper" mean? "Supremacy"? "Establishment of Religion"? These terms don't define themselves and the definitions you will find in text books and online are all from the Court because defining the law's scope is what the Court does. Judicial review is simply the nice neat little phrase we call that role.

and hold the mistaken belief that the Executive isn't limited by the Constitution with unique powers enumerated to the president?

Who said the President doesn't have limits? The Presidential Powers are called Presidential Powers for a reason, granted there's a lot less law built up defining the President than Congress, in part because the way the Constitution is written, everything is talked about within relative terms with Congress as the center. It's actually one of the reasons so many Presidential Systems in the world that have tried to model themselves on the US become dictatorships. The system we use is one that puts a lot of power in the Executive, and historically that tends to lead to dictatorship. The US is one of the few states using a Presidential system that has managed to avoid that pitfall (so go us I guess).

And by the way, it isn't a "flaw" in the system, as you put it. It's called "checks and balances", a safeguard against the very tyranny you're concerned about.

Checks and balances only work if the system works as intended. For example, lets say Congress passes a law that no one can talk about KFC's eleven spices. KFC sues saying this law limits their speech rights for no good reason. The Court finds in favor of KFC and that Congress has violated KFC's speech rights by passing said law, but Congress decides to ignore the court, and the President decides he's perfectly okay with KFC's speech being limited. Functionally, there's nothing the Court can do. I.E. Flaw, and as I said before it's not really something that can be fixed. Likewise, in the mythical tale of Jackson ignoring the court, there's again nothing the court can theoretically do. They have no power to enforce a ruling beyond the law saying that their rulings are final. They have the US Marshals of course, but somehow I don't think the US Marshals quite measure up to the United States Army (and technically the Marshals are part of the Executive Branch, they just work with the courts).

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Oh yes, you mean the steady devaluing of the currency since 1933,

You don't understand how money works. 'Currency devaluation' divorced from the money supply or international exchange rates is just a silly way of saying 'there's been inflation'.

And yeah, there's been inflation. And while 'my dollar buys less bread than it did last year' sounds terrible, it completely misses the fact that inflation doesn't just drive up prices, it drives up incomes as well. "Last year I earned $100 and could buy 100 loaves of bread with it, this year I earned $102 and could buy 100 loaves of bread with it - damn that inflation".

move to total fiat money via repeal of the gold and silver standards, allowing for "easy money" to encourage piss poor investments among banks and brokers during a false boom in the 1920's

The US left the gold standard in 1933. You haven't even got the basic timeline right, let alone the more complex economic elements.

the constant cycle of fragile bubble economies driven by said fiat money

Economic history has shown us that bubbles were just as common before the 20th century. Bubbles are driven by speculative investment, in which an initially sound premise (such as housing prices are set to increase) feeds upon itself until it becomes irrational and then crashes. None of that changes whether the underlying currency can be traded for precious metal or not.

The difference is that fiat currency gives the central bank the ability to offset the negative impact of the bust, while if the currency is tied to the gold standard then not only can the central bank do nothing, the impact of gold valuation actually makes the issue worse, driving deflation.

and a semi private corporation (Federal Reserve) with private banks on the Federal Reserve Board deciding economic policy of the country?

No, it is controlled by government. Just pay attention next time a person is appointed to the Fed. Notice that the appointment is made by the president, with senate review. Yeah.

What you're getting confused by is the funding of the central bank. The banks are required to stump up the cash to provide an asset base for the federal reserve - they receive 'stocks', but these stocks give the banks no control of the reserve. It was just a means of creating the equity needed for the bank.

In the end, what used to be "good as gold" is trailing behind foreign currencies, including EU funny money.

This makes little sense, bares little relation to reality (the Euro floated at 1.17usd, it's now 1.15 usd), and shows you think about currency in some strange semi-mercantilist sense. Having a more powerful dollar doesn't make for a more powerful country. Instead, the dollar should reflect the economic strength or weakness driven by other factors - depreciating in weak times to allow for greater competitiveness.

But it doesn't matter in the long run. Hard currency will be obsolete is 20-30 years anyway. So it's all a moot point.

You're getting confused between technical elements and accounting/economic elements. This is the same confusion that reigns within bitcoin, so you're in good if wrongheaded company. While currency could go any which on a technical level, as it has done with the rise of electronic banking already, ultimately a good currency needs to be managed to prevent feeding and prolonging boom bust cycles. That is the role of the central bank, whether this is done with printing money or transferring electronic balances is irrelevant.

Congress, if they performed their duties as they were supposed to, could've settled on standardized currency policy without a central bank. But instead, they created a monster to do it for them.

Actually, the US was amazingly astute in seeing the need for a central bank that operates independently within government.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
What are they? They look like bacteria to me!

It's a type of wattle.

Apparently all our notes are going to have an example of it when they're done redesigning them all. They look horrible.

I have a few thoughts about the new $20 bill, Tubman, and Jackson.

1. Jackson was a tool, but he did know how to get done what he wanted and made no apologies for it. While I might not agree with it, I do respect his resolve.

2. Jackson was majorly awesome (in a manly man kind of way). He kicked the crud out of the British in New Orleans, and was the first President to have an assassination attempt pulled on him. When the assassin's pistols failed Jackson pushed off his private security guards and personally beat the would-be assassin to a pulp. That gets props from me.

3. Tubman was my kind of woman. Finally, a wholesome, gun toting, Republican is being held up by liberals as a role model.

4. With Tubman on the front of the bill, and Jackson moving to the back, does anyone else find it funny that a Black person is making a white "go to the back"?

 cuda1179 wrote:

3. Tubman was my kind of woman. Finally, a wholesome, gun toting, Republican is being held up by liberals as a role model.

I've seen this comment in various ways all over the interwebz. I was just wondering what right-wing website it started on?

Harriet Tubman...about time...'nuff said!

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

3. Tubman was my kind of woman. Finally, a wholesome, gun toting, Republican is being held up by liberals as a role model.

I've seen this comment in various ways all over the interwebz. I was just wondering what right-wing website it started on?

It seems to have cropped up on a Guns.com article from April 20th and wandered from there. I know I started seeing this image on Facebook plenty:



Which is pretty amusing both for the lies of omissions present and that the woman portrayed isn't Harriet Tubman. Forging the narrative!

I'm pretty sure Martin Va Buren was not commonly known by the name Andrew Jackson, and that just because a party was built around the guys image doesn't make him the founder.

So there's some more forging the narrative for you

And then there's the whole deal about how the Republican Party of the 19th century isn't the same politically as the one today.