Posted on 09/10/2005 4:46:12 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Lincoln holiday on its way out
By Phil Kabler Staff writer
A bill to combine state holidays for Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays into a single Presidents’ Day holiday cleared its first legislative committee Wednesday, over objections from Senate Republicans who said it besmirches Abraham Lincoln’s role in helping establish West Virginia as a state.
Senate Government Organization Committee members rejected several attempts to retain Lincoln’s birthday as a state holiday.
State Sen. Russ Weeks, R-Raleigh, introduced an amendment to instead eliminate Columbus Day as a paid state holiday. “Columbus didn’t have anything to do with making West Virginia a state,” he said. “If we have to cut one, let’s cut Christopher Columbus.”
Jim Pitrolo, legislative director for Gov. Joe Manchin, said the proposed merger of the two holidays would bring West Virginia in line with federal holidays, and would effectively save $4.6 million a year — the cost of one day’s pay to state workers.
Government Organization Chairman Ed Bowman, D-Hancock, said the overall savings would be even greater, since by law, county and municipal governments must give their employees the same paid holidays as state government.
“To the taxpayers, the savings will be even larger,” he said.
The bill technically trades the February holiday for a new holiday on the Friday after Thanksgiving. For years, though, governors have given state employees that day off with pay by proclamation.
Sen. Sarah Minear, R-Tucker, who also objected to eliminating Lincoln’s birthday as a holiday, argued that it was misleading to suggest that eliminating the holiday will save the state money.
“It’s not going to save the state a dime,” said Minear, who said she isn’t giving up on retaining the Lincoln holiday.
Committee members also rejected an amendment by Sen. Steve Harrison, R-Kanawha, to recognize the Friday after Thanksgiving as “Lincoln Day.”
“I do believe President Lincoln has a special place in the history of West Virginia,” he said.
Sen. Randy White, D-Webster, said he believed that would create confusion.
“It’s confusing to me,” he said.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler, D-Marshall, suggested that the state could recognize Lincoln’s proclamation creating West Virginia as part of the June 20 state holiday observance for the state’s birthday.
Proponents of the measure to eliminate a state holiday contend that the numerous paid holidays - as many as 14 in election years — contribute to inefficiencies in state government.
To contact staff writer Phil Kabler, use e-mail or call 348-1220.
These are the most often cited, but of course, the largest reason was simple fear of governmental excess. You know, one day they're keeping you out of the shared territories, the next they're protecting the murder of 40,000,000 (seven zeroes) children.
But hey, what did they know?
Nothing, of course, that Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Henry Lee & others didn't warn them about decades prior.
Why wouldn't I quote it? It's the only valid, binding authority on the matter.
Madison was embarrassed by it to the point where he engaged in one of the most amazing feats of backpeddaling in our country's history. I can practically see him standing behind the podium, waggling his finger in true WJC style, saying, "Those are not conditions, but the inherent terms of the document. Of course by those presents we ratified."
Laughably, in declaring the conditions to be no such thing, he extended them to all who ratified. Lose the battle, lose the war. Maybe afterward he got drunk and cried about it, seems to be a trend amongst your champions.
Why not eliminate them all?
[Non, 320] Now you're just being a boob.
[mac, 348] Hey Stugots..[numbnuts] but stop acting like you possess some superior intellect, when all you really are is just another neo-confederate Fessacchione [f**king idiot] whose opinion smells like a baby's used diaper. Capisci?
[Non, 361] And you're proof that "Iowa" is an acronym. [idiots out wandering around]
[mac, 396] Hey Professor Cacasodo [one who takes a hard s**t]... Whatsa matter saputo, [smart a**]
[Non, 400] But hey, "IOWA".
[mac, 404] ..you gray diaper babies ... Fare il grande from Professor Cacasodo...
[mac, 425] Hey stugots, ... or are you really a fessacchione ?
"trash from Non and Mac"
You complain about it, but don't deny it.
If you're going to rip on Lee, I suspect you'd pick a battle where he failed to accomplish his objectives.
But go ahead, explain the failure of Lee's tactics.
Which, of course, completely justifies burning Lawrence and butchering 200 innocent men and boys. At least in the southron mind.
I do. Do you know what "hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People" means?
As opposed to people obsessed with like our own "B.M." Espinola.
Wrong. Until the 14th, there were no American citizens, there were on state citizens.
We live in under Constitutionally mandated republican form of government, and as such, the wishes of the majority via delegates or votes is supreme (using your logic Lincoln had to accomodate Northern Copperheads).
You assert that I 'cherish' treason which is a lie - I cherish the God given right of self government.
The states seceded - renounced their allegience to the union - defending themselves from invasion from President Dictator Lincoln.
What clause in the Constitution allows the President to invade a state in the union without request by the state? None. Per the Constitition (Article IV §4) the legislature or Executive of a state must petition for assistance, or else be invaded. No legislature or governor requested aid, thus leaving the only Constitutional grounds for invasion by King Lincoln was the invasion of the states - WHO were these unknown invaders?
Not being members of the American union, they were not traitors - just as George Washington was not a traitor (see my #434).
If the US voted to renounce membership in the UN, who then refused to abandon said UN building, would the US have the right to reclaim property on their soil?
No one is wanting to turn the clock back to pre-1960 South, what is desired is a return to the limited federal government envisioned by the framers, and an end to the federal leviathan that exists today.
I do not wear a war bonnet, the only one that can command me to do anything is my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ - and you ain't Him.
Sedition was not breaking out everywhere. Per Amendment I, the people of each state have the God given right to assemble. The people were attempting to banish a foreign invader from their soil. The charge of sedition is levied by those that haven't a spine, cowards that tremble when Senators Leahy and Kennedy speak, that would submit to their authority, even when they craft a law violating the Constitution. You sir, may continue to crouch down like a dog and lick the hand that feeds you, I'll side with Patrick Henry and George Washington.
You claim that I 'need to clean up my act'. In other words, you assert again that your authority extends over me, and over anyone disagreeing with your opinion. I do agree that this republic has many problems, notably liberals, and liberals pretending to be conservative while handing out billions and billions of our money on pork.
I guess the French were considered Americans ;o)
So let me get this straight, if you were attacked, your position is one of non-defense?
Wrong. The government continued to exist even after secession. The union of states continued, just with fewer members. The states already had slavery, it was protected, there wouldn't be enough votes to sustain an amendment ending it, Lincoln supported making it permanent, and did not wage war to end it:
'We didn't go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differ at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause but smack of bad faith; for I never should have had votes enough to send me here if the people had supposed I should try to use my power to upset slavery. Why, the first thing you'd see, would be a mutiny in the [UNION] army.'
[4CJ] No. Yes. I point out that Congress itself saw no illegal act, they refused to act because secession was legal.
Their inaction was meaningless with regard to the ultimate question of the legality of those actions taken by the secessionists in 1860. That's probably why you continue to bring it up.
Please document thsi alleged Constitutional responsibility to preserve the union.
The US Constitution delineates the responsibilities of three separate but co-equal branches of government, and the concept of secession was a Constitutional matter. The second section of Article 3 states that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" . If Secession were legal and equitable under the Constitution as you presume, where is the petition to the court whose power extends to ALL cases?
Conventions were assembled, a vote was taken. The sovereign power of each state - a power higher than the legislature and Constitution - met, and voted to change their form of government.
Fraud. There is no Fourth branch of government. The State has NO power to invalidate the citizenship of Americans living within their borders who are guaranteed equal treatment/protection under the US Constitution, or to decide the disposition of Federal land and property. This is just one of a myriad of examples of how the secessionists trampled on the US Constitution on their way out the door.
They did not wage war on the federal government nor attempt to overthrow it..
Nonsense. Of course they did, from the attack on Ft. Sumner... to Gov. Pickins memo to Davis offering to send troops to DC.
...they exercised their God given imagined right to self-government hold other men in chains.
Only citizens could be charged with treason - non citizens cannot.
One of the most annoying aspects of dealing with you neo-secesionists is the dishonest way you bob and weave around the US Constitution. You commit treason then claim it doesn't apply because you held a sham election, then claim you were acting in the same manner as Geo. Washington.
At least Washington [et al] didn't pretend that their Revolution was legal under existing law, or that the consequences of their action wasn't the gallows rope. Why don't you gray diaper babies man up for a change and admit what happened in 1860 was a failed attempt at revolution, not some Constitutionally protected legality?
When YOU can't win a debate this is your retort, to accuse someone of racism, of being a vile and despicible?
Bwahaha! Like so many thin skinned neo-rebs, you can dish it out but you can't take it. You accuse me of racism against native indians on a regular basis and it rolls off my back, yet when I obliquely raise the issue you have a hissy fit. A simple disavowal would be sufficient.
Amazing, considering that six states seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated, much less mounting any kind of "invasion." And what are we to make of the states seizing federal facilities and weapons before they announced their secession?
So let me get this straight, if one POW dies at Point Lookout because he doesn't have a blanket, it's cold-blooded murder, but if Bloody Bill Anderson marches down a line of kneeling prisoners shooting them in the head, it's self-defense?
The subject was Bloody Bill Anderson being an animal.
Nope. There has to be a law making their actions illegal. Congress, the President and every judge knew what had transpired - no suit was filed, nor did congress declare war. Chief Justice Chase later said, 'by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion.'
The US Constitution delineates the responsibilities of three separate but co-equal branches of government, and the concept of secession was a Constitutional matter.
The Constitution created the federal government - the federal legislature, executive and judicial branches. As Justice Patterson wrote, they are "creatures of the Constitution." The servant does not have the delegated power to judge the relationships between the parties - the states are the arbiters. In 1789, neither the President, congress, nor judiciary could decide whether or not a state ratified - it was totally up to each state for themselves to decide.
The second section of Article 3 states that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" . If Secession were legal and equitable under the Constitution as you presume, where is the petition to the court whose power extends to ALL cases?
Cases are filed by the injured party, not one seeking permission. The Constitution specifically limits federal powers (Article I §1: 'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States'; Article I §8 'The Congress shall have the power 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'; Amendments IX and X). Secession is not a delegated power 'arising under this Constitution.'
Fraud. There is no Fourth branch of government.
Fraud - the Constitution cannot be amended by the President, congress or the courts. Only the 'Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof' can amend it. Their power is sovereign over the Constitution.
The State has NO power to invalidate the citizenship of Americans living within their borders who are guaranteed equal treatment/protection under the US Constitution.
The 14th does not apply (post bellum). By your reasoning the states could not deprive Tories of their British citizenship but they did.
Nonsense. Of course they did, from the attack on Ft. Sumner... to Gov. Pickins memo to Davis offering to send troops to DC.
Nonsense. Sumter et al were hundreds of miles from any union states - the states simply reclaimed property on their sovereign soil, just as the US would reclaim the UN building if Koffi refuses to leave when the US secedes from the UN.
Why don't you gray diaper babies man up for a change and admit what happened in 1860 was a failed attempt at revolution, not some Constitutionally protected legality?
Until you can point to a clause prohibiting secession, it's you that must must admit to waging a war of northern aggression.
Bwahaha! Like so many thin skinned neo-rebs, you can dish it out but you can't take it.
I have my opinion as to your mental state, but it's not me dishing out the insults - it's YOU.
You accuse me of racism against native indians on a regular basis and it rolls off my back, yet when I obliquely raise the issue you have a hissy fit.
Obliquely? Bwaahahahahaha!
A simple disavowal would be sufficient.
I did reply - 'we all all of one blood, descendants of Adam and Eve - all brothers and sisters in the eyes of God and myself.' I have never, and will never judge or hate anyone based on he color of their skin. I moved next to several black families, I have black friends, they eat at our table, and swim in our pool with us and my children. As I wrote before, you're 'attempting to pass off YOUR beliefs as mine.'
And just who did the citizens of Lawrence attack?
NOPE, because they were ALL jayhawkers, redlegs or common criminals, who had committed arson,rape,robbery or other serious crimes against civilians in MO & KS.
FACT!
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.