Several members of the South Carolina legislature, always a good source of political shenanigans, are giving the nation a new reason to pay attention. In the state that gave us Mark Sanford, Joe “You lie!” Wilson, and a Secession Gala, lawmakers are proposing legislation to allow new specialty license plates that have led to raised eyebrows and rolled eyes. The planned plates include tags that would replicate a Tea Party emblem, the “Don’t Tread On Me” rattlesnake flag originally designed in 1775 by S.C. political leader Christopher Gadsden. Other plates would read “Second Amendment;” “Coon Hunters;” and “Largemouth Bass.” And no, we’re not kidding.
The state is no stranger to controversies over specialty license plates. In 2008, it took a federal judge’s ruling to halt creation of an “I Believe” Christian plate. As that case made its way through the courts, the Columbia Free Times reports, “the state’s Republican establishment elbowed each other out of the way to defend the [“I Believe” plate].”
In true hypocritical fashion, the GOP lawmakers currently scrambling to take credit for the Tea Party plate idea — strict financial conservatives, don’t you know — are wasting taxpayer money. You see, in South Carolina, private groups can apply to create specialty plates at the state Dept. of Public Safety (DPS); no legislation is needed. If the legislature approves the new plates, the designs would still need to be checked and approved by the DPS; in other words, the whole thing amounts to wasteful political grandstanding. And it’s not as if the DPS would be likely to turn down the new plates if they had been suggested by private groups; the gallery of S.C. specialty plates runs the gamut from “Sons of Confederate Veterans” to “Endangered Species,” “In God We Trust” to “Secular Humanists of the Low Country.” We were surprised, however, that no “Cockfightin’ R Us” or “Orangeburg Massacre” plates are available; oh well, maybe next year.
This article appears in Jan 4-10, 2011.
This my blowhard friend is known as the 1st Amendment and it has been thoroughly litigated since types like you constantly demand that ONLY your point of view be considered.
Dear Brag “Frank’s new made-up name” Bowling,
Once again you make a comment that is completely beside the point of the original post. Nowhere in the post did I even hint that SC shouldn’t be allowed to have the new license plates in question, or, for that matter, any plates they want. Here’s a news flash: You can disagree with an action, and even call it out as being ridiculous (which is all this post was doing, in case you still can’t figure it out) without thinking that the action should be banned. Or didn’t you know that? Whether you did or not, how about using your space in the comments section to address something that’s actually brought up in the post, instead of just slinging insults that have no bearing on the issue at hand?