Posted on 04/04/2003 11:09:24 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
Negotiators approve flag compromise
By JIM GALLOWAY
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
Proposed new Georgia state flag.
Georgia's state flag would be changed immediately, with a public vote to follow, under a plan endorsed by a key House committee today.
The new flag would resemble the first national flag of the Confederacy -- three red and white bars, with a blue field in the top left corner. The state seal would be in the blue corner, and the words "In God We Trust" would be written to the right.
The bill adopted by the House Rules Committee calls for the Legislature to change the flag to the new design immediately. Then, in March 2004, a public referendum would be held to let voters decide whether they want to keep that flag.
Only if the new flag is rejected by voters would a second referendum be held, this time in July 2004, asking voters if they want to return to the Georgia flag dominated by the Confederate battle emblem, or the flag that flew before 1956. The current flag would not be on the ballot.
The Rules Committee proposal now heads to the full House for a vote next week, although the bill may be amended there and still requires Senate approval.
Gov. Sonny Perdue, who had proposed a statewide referendum on changing Georgia's flag, is endorsing the proposal.
"We believe this represents a compromise," said Rep. Glenn Richardson (R-Dallas), the governor's floor leader who sponsored Perdue's flag bill. "This will bring this to a conclusion."
The Legislature, led by former Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes, voted in 2001 to shrink the Confederate battle emblem on the state flag, which was added in 1956 as Georgia schools were being ordered to desegregate.
the KKK HQ is in Butler, IN;the last time i looked IN was a northern state.
free dixie,sw
The 10th amendment states
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.
There is a huge difference between your comment above and what is stated in amendment. X
Thus the State was considered to be of greater importance then the federal government, which at that time had minimal duties and responsibilites (especially compared to today). Thus, if a State did infact decide that the Constituion, which was an experiment, and still in infancy, was no longer serving the needs of the state, a state was within their rights to consider the Constituion desolved.
I disagree completely. Can you cite any case law to back up this opinion of yours?
mac_truck => as in hit by one.
The 10th amendment states:
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.
I do not see any essentual difference in those two statements. Enlighten me.
Rember all, all power comes from the people, the Constitution defines which powers the people voluntarily relinquish to the Feds. All other powers remain with the people and the state (which is more representative of the local population).
Politically, there seems to be a sizable gulf between WhiskeyPapa and myself, but he does seem to be a "thorn in the flesh" to many of you pro-Confederates, and that is fine with me
He may be left of center, but he does know his Civil War history. Perhaps, that is why you are attacking him politically because you seem to keep loosing the debate.
Now watch I am going to be accused of being a communist, socialist, south-hating ...too.
Where did the KKK originate?
I'm sure you could, but that is not the issue here any more than the fact that I could find the same on pro-Yankee web sites. At issue is the fact that a poster here, WhiskeyPapa, is an avowed leftist democrat who, in an extension of that leftist agenda, posts PC-rants against anything southern right here and right now on FR.
Politically, there seems to be a sizable gulf between WhiskeyPapa and myself, but he does seem to be a "thorn in the flesh" to many of you pro-Confederates, and that is fine with me
If I am in correct in presuming that you are a conservative, I venture to say that Walt's politics are more dissimilar to your own than mine or most of the others you would group as pro-confederates.
He may be left of center, but he does know his Civil War history.
Not really. He parrots ahistorical cut n' paste snipets off of newsgroups, many of which have practically nothing to do with the subject he claims to be addressing other than the fact that they're both civil war-related. On many occasions I have seen him stare directly in the face of first hand historical evidence and deny its existence because admitting otherwise would require him to admit that Abe Lincoln was something other than an infallable deity. Such is not history - it is fraud.
Now watch I am going to be accused of being a communist, socialist, south-hating ...too.
Only if you start bragging about how you voted for Al Gore and start posting blame-america-firster rants about how George Bush is at fault for 9/11. If you do not do such or anything that may be construed similarly, you have nothing to worry about.
Amendment X reserves undelegated and unprohibited powers, it doesn't give up "all powers not specifically mentioned". There's a process by which these powers are uncovered and tested. I notice you haven't provided any case law to back your opinion, that the state comes before the federal. Why is that?
Remember all, all power comes from the people, the Constitution defines which powers the people voluntarily relinquish..
Oh I haven't forgotten about "we the people", although from your original statement, it seems you have. Nice try though.
I urge to read these links where Walt has been know to post from. Consider your own conservative positions and how these websites fit into your realm.
One time Sebesta appeared on the Pacifica radio network (Mary Frances Berry's marxist left wing ANSWER-crowd radio outfit) as an "expert" on the confederacy along with Wlat's other favorite source of cut n' pastes, socialist historian James M. "Noam" McPherson. The topic of the show? "How George W. Bush is a racist confederate."
In summary, Wlat's politics are from the far left. Wlat's historical "sources," if you can even call them that, are from the far left. Wlat's PC-mongering against all things southern is from the far left. And, as always, Wlat's habitual dishonesty and willful blindness in debates such as these are the classic traits of a leftist.
Everything about the guy reeks of goofy radical fringe-style marx-tainted race-obsessed blame-america-first leftism. To pretend that the stench is anything else is to decieve oneself.
I quote the Supreme Court pretty often, and the people of the day. That you characterize it as "snippets off of newsgroups" will speak to the people who can hear.
On many occasions I have seen him stare directly in the face of first hand historical evidence and deny its existence because admitting otherwise would require him to admit that Abe Lincoln was something other than an infallable deity.
How long did it take for you to craft --that-- sentence? Boy, if that's all you have on Lincoln -- that he wasn't God, I reckon you are about done in this contest.
Abraham Lincoln was a man who made mistakes, but he got an awful lot right. Lincoln had a powerful intellect. He had a full helping of common sense and a great capacity for work. He also had a great and good heart. It's no wonder he is considered one of the greatest Americans, if not the greatest. I defend Mr. Lincoln against your calumnies. Why don't you run some of them up again, and we'll see how they fly this time.
Walt
Walt
Like George Washington, I guess:
"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."
--George Washington, July 1796
Yep, I cut and pasted that.
Walt
I do spend too much time on this. But I think the history is impportant. You don't like the way the feds are doing things, fine. I'd agree. To say that what the federal government is doing today has anything to do with the American Civil War is ludicrous. To say that unilateral state secession is legal under U.S. law is not supported by the record; it is also seditious.
Walt
Dude, you're sportin' the Bonny Blue on your own page. Contradiction?
I wouldn't go that far, but you do seem to stereotype when it comes to us Southerns.
In what way?
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.