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.
Bump. Excellent post.
'Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent; even that they should strike us out of the Union' - Patrick Henry, 5 Jun 1788. The very same DAY.
No refutation is needed, period or otherwise. The Virginia ratification could have included an assertion that the moon was made of green cheese for all the binding effect it would have on the rest of the States. Only a document signed by ALL the parties, is binding upon them all. That document was the U.S. Constitution, NOT the Virginia ratification.
..or evidence of Lee's incompetence in planning the 7 Days battle.
No, I was waiting for you to describe Lee's brilliance as a tactician during those battles, perhaps informing us in which battle you felt Lee particularly excelled. Instead I find you're shifting your position on Lee from brilliant tactical commander to competent battle planner without too much input from my side. Why you retreat almost as well as ol Granny himself [lol].
Same day, same speech, same paragraph therein. [Anti Federalist 34]
The only difference being the intellectual dishonesty with which you cherry-picked his words. I would expect nothing less from a neo-secessionist, or a scoundrel.
the book cited exists. as you KNOW from a previous communication almost a year ago between you & me on this forum.
face it, N-S, everyone here is on to your game. all you do is post PROPAGANDA that ATTEMPTS to cover-up the ABUSES & WAR CRIMES of the lincoln administration & blame EVERYTHING that ever went wrong since the beginning of time on the CSA.
free dixie,sw
freee dixie,sw
be gone to DU.
free dixie,sw
UNfortunately for you the FACTS do not support your version of the events at Lawrence. the PUNITIVE RAID on Lawrence was caused ONLY by the documented fact that MANY redlegs, jayhawkers & "Kansas volunteer cavalry" PREYED ON the peaceful citizens of IT, AR, MO AND upon many citizens of Kansas as well. they were just gangs of COMMON CRIMINALS, who were intentionally NOT PROSECUTED by the KS state government.
WELL-settled international laws of war allow PUNITIVE EXPEDITIONS to punish criminals, when the area where they reside CANNOT or WILL NOT punish those violators. there is nothing more or less to the situation at Lawrence than that.
btw,on the day of the punitive raid on Lawrence, COL James Lane was off raiding farms in KANSAS with his "5th KS volunteers" (COL Lane was a sitting US SENATOR from KS at that time!). COL "Doc" Jennison was in Missouri, with his band of thugs, raiding farms. BOTH of those "redleg leaders" were engaged in "war for fun & profit". that, too, is FACT.
also,the TRUTH is that the lincoln coven INTENTIONALLY attempted to HIDE the MANY THOUSANDS of murders, robberies,arsons of otherwise innocent civilians & helpless CSA POWs, as well as ABUSES of citizens rights by the unionist THUGS before, during & all throughout lincoln's reign.
fwiw, there is no enough soap & water in all creation to wash the innocent blood of THOUSANDS of the DEFENSELESS from the hands of lincoln, the TYRANT & WAR CRIMINAL.
free dixie,sw
I'd rather side with Madison, Jefferson and Cleveland:
I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevailing tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
President Grover Cleveland, 16 Feb 1887
And by Franklin Pierce:
The question presented, therefore, clearly is upon the constitutionality and propriety of the federal government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely--that of providing for the care and support of all those, among the people of the United States, who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthrophy.I readily, and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us all, as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, are subject to want, and to disease of body or mind; but I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the federal government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and subversive of the whole theory upon which the union of these States is founded. And if it were admissible to contemplate the exercise of this power for any object whatever, I cannot avoid the belief that it would in the end be prejudicial, rather than beneficial, in the noble offices of charity to have the charge of them transferred from the States to the federal government. Are we not too prone to forget that the federal Union is the creature of the States, not they of the federal Union? We were the inhabitants of colonies, distinct in local government one from the other, before the revolution. By that revolution, the colonies each became an independent State. They achieved that independence, and secured its recognition by the agency of a consulting body, which, from being an assembly of the ministers of distinct sovereignties, instructed to agree to no form of government which did not leave the domestic concerns of each State to itself, was appropriately denominated a Congress. When having tried the experiment of the confederation, they resolved to change that for the present federal Union, and thus to confer on the federal government more ample authority, they scrupulously measured such of the functions of their cherished sovereignty as they chose to delegate to the general government. With this aim, and to this end, the fathers of the republic framed the Constitution, in and by which the independent and sovereign States united themselves for certain specified objects and purposes, and for those only, leaving all powers not therein set forth as conferred on one or another of the three great departments--the legislative, the executive and the judicial-indubitably with the States. And when the people of the several States had, in their State conventions, and thus alone, given effect and force to the Constitution, not content that any doubt should in future arise as to the scope and character of this act, they engrafted thereon the explicit declaration that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," can it be controverted that the great mass of the business of government, that involved in the social relations the internal arrangements of the body politic, the mental and moral culture of men, the development of local resources of wealth, the punishment of crimes in general, the preservation of order, the relief of the needy or otherwise unfortunate members of society, did, in practice, remain with the States; that none of these objects of local concern are by the Constitution expressly or impliedly prohibited to the States; and that none of them are, by any express language of the Constitution, transferred to the United States? Can it be claimed that any of these functions of local administration and legislation are vested in the federal government by any implication? I have never found anything in the Constitution which is susceptible of such a construction. No one of the enumerated powers touches the subject, or has even a remote analogy to it. The powers conferred upon the United States have reference to federal relations, or to the means of accomplishing or executing things of federal relation. So, also, of the same character are the powers taken away from the States by enumeration. In either case, the powers granted, and the powers restricted, were so granted or so restricted only where it was requisite for the maintenance of peace and harmony between the States, or for the purpose of protecting their common interests, and defending their common sovereignty against aggression from abroad or insurrection at home.
President Franklin Pierce, 3 May 1854
You might embrace socialism - I reject it.
You might mention that the New York World had, that day, published a fraudulent story claiming that the President had just called for 400,000 more troops, a story that was likely to cause renewed riots in New York like those that had devastated the city 10 months earlier. Within 48 hours, the reporter who had concocted the phony story (with supporting documentation on stolen letterhead paper) had confessed. The newspaper editors were immediately released.
The Articles of Confederation spoke of a perpetual union. The Constitution later made the perpetual union more perfect, not weaker. The Preamble of the Constitution presupposes a preexisting union which in this case was perpetual.
the Constitution REPLACED the AOC.
free dixie,sw
Then surely you'd be able to point to at least one library which has it listed in their online catalog. Perhaps one of the University of Missouri campuses? Nope, not there. What about the Missouri State Library? Surely they'd have a copy. Hmm, I guess not. What about the Library of Congress? That would also be a no.
Maybe it's shelved with the Lincoln letters and "Yachts Against Subs" in that secret library that only you're allowed to visit.
If, say, the al-Jazeera newspaper had offices in the United States urging U.S. troops to desert, plotting with al-Queda, etc., you can bet that President Bush would have them closed down.
I'd see your point better if the Preamble said "to make a weaker union". But if you start with something perpetual and only make it stronger, it is still perpetual.
Why don't they get rid of the stupid holiday's altogether?
When was the last time you saw someone read a book about Columbus, or Lincoln, or Washington.
People go shopping to get merchandise on sale. Nobody honors any of these people. These holidays are all a complete and utter waste and serve zero purpose toward which they were supposedly intended.
Who do you think better upheld the ideals of Patrick Henry and the Declaration of Independence-the Radical Republicans or Cornerstone Stephens and the rest of the pro-slavery crowd?
Unless the Declaration didn't really mean what it said, the Radical Republicans were the true heirs of the Revolution and it's goal of liberty for ALL men.
Sigh, it must be PROHIBITED to the states. Even Hamilton admits that powers may be resummed by those delegating them:
[T]he confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty. ... The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be ''an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 9, 'The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection'
'I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.'
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 'The Judiciary Department'
What union did VA, NY, NC and RI belong after 21 Jun 1788, until each ratified the Constitution?
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.