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.
There's nothing wrong with southern heritage, see my 41. But the historical battle flag is coming down off the statehouse and the courthouse whether the 'old south' likes it or not.
Walt quotes Sandra Day O'Conner and Antonin Scalia in his defense of the constitution and Lincoln. He quotes Washinton, Madison, and Jefferson, and attempts to use them to argue from a historical context.
Its your intellectual dishonesty that is showing again, not his.
BTW, the KLAN has more members in IN than in all 15 southron states.
FRee dixie,sw
all he does is spew hatefilled, self-serving, out of context bilgewater, which he cuts/pastes off the worldwideweird.
MOST of what he posts is both off-point & FALSE.
the scalawag is the "minister of DIS-information" to the ignorant, arrogant & un-informed.
FRee dixie,sw
we CSA desendents are going to win this one AND we will get the legislature to pass a bill requiring the state flag to be flown on ALL GA public buildings.
take that to the bank.
free dixie,sw
I don't believe I've ever seen him quote Scalia. If the best he's got is a squishy swing voting moderate like O'Conner, he can keep her just the same.
He quotes Washinton, Madison, and Jefferson, and attempts to use them to argue from a historical context.
I have only rarely seen him quote Jefferson before, largely because many of Jefferson's quotes were in direct conflict with The Lincoln's actions. He does seem to quote Washington fairly frequently, though almost always out of context or in a situation where he claims Washington to have said something that he didn't (Normally this consists of taking any and every quote that mentions the word "union" in any context whatsoever and declaring, based solely upon the presence of that word, that it must have meant The Lincoln's concept of the union). He does the same with Madison, though on a less frequent basis.
No Walt. You only quote the court when it supports your view or, more often, when an out of context snipet from a court ruling that you discovered on a newsgroup can be twisted to support your view. But when the court contradicts your view or something that your false god did, you could care less about what it has to say.
and the people of the day.
Not really. You only offer quotes from the people of the day insofar as they can be spun out of context to suggest support for some act of The Lincoln. More often that not, your flood of cut n' paste quotes is wholly irrelevant to the item you are arguing.
That you characterize it as "snippets off of newsgroups" will speak to the people who can hear.
That it will, and those who have seen you post will recognize immediately that your most frequent and favorite "source" for everything is indeed a newsgroup.
How long did it take for you to craft --that-- sentence?
A few seconds of typing. How long did it take you to draft --that-- non-response?
Boy, if that's all you have on Lincoln -- that he wasn't God, I reckon you are about done in this contest.
Your straw man is noted, Walt. As you can plainly see, my argument was not about The Lincoln's lack of divine qualities but rather about YOUR inability to comprehend that he lacks divine qualities. Read it again: 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.
Abraham Lincoln was a man who made mistakes
Name them then. This will be a first for you.
More patented sw BS.
Walt and I rarely converse so your statement makes no sense. I was pinged here by one of you guys.
He may even call it "manure", "lies", or even worse. Watch out for incoming.
I'm sure there are many things we disagree on, but the level of conversation depends on the person you're disagreeing with, and so those words aren't necessary between Walt and I.
mac_truck => as in hit by one.
Congratulations on being rarely conversant with Walt. It must be easier on your eyes.
First Amendment. The First Amendment was virtually a Jeffersonian creation. Jefferson, away in France, chastised his protégé Madison for failing to include a bill of rights in the Constitution containing, among others provisions, "freedom of the press." Madison’s First Amendment, modified in various ways of no great importance to us now, became the law of the land in 1791. It did not, however, stop the Federalists from enacting the Alien and Sedition laws in 1798 which outlawed speech critical of the government. Thus, in ten short years, the wily Federalists went from arguing that no First Amendment was necessary because the federal government had not been delegated power over the press, to arguing that the federal government could regulate political speech even after the passage of the first amendment.
Jefferson, typically, saw the contradiction. He wrote to the naive Madison, who had seen no need for a first amendment:
"Among other enormities, [the Sedition act] undertakes to make certain matters criminal tho' one of the amendments to the Constitution has expressly taken printing presses, etc., out of their coercion."
No one challenged the Sedition law in the Supreme Court, but Jefferson, the ever-vigilant libertarian, took action which was to have consequences far beyond the narrow issue of free speech. He authored – anonymously – the Kentucky Resolution. Jefferson wrote:
"[T]he several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for general purposes, delegated to that government certain powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect."
Thus, Jefferson developed the controversial theory of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws in order to deal with the free speech crisis caused by passage of the Sedition act.
In contrast, Lincoln was the First Amendment’s greatest enemy. In 1839, Alexis de Tocqueville had written: "Among the twelve million people living in the United States, there is not one single man who has dared to suggest restricting the freedom of the press." Just twenty-five years later, Lincoln, true to his Federalist and Hamiltonian roots, felt no compunction whatever about jailing during the Civil War a total of thirteen thousand Northern civilians who had expressed views critical of Lincoln or his war. According to historian Arthur Ekirch, this was often done "without any sort of trial or after only cursory hearings before a military tribunal."
The deeper implications of Lincoln’s suppression of free speech are rarely noticed. The need for widespread suppression suggests that Lincoln’s war was not part of the electoral majority mandate that he claimed to be vindicating by invading the South. Historian Paul Johnson said the only Northern state that initially favored war was Massachusetts. If true, that means that Lincoln paradoxically had to drag the rest into a war for the benefit of that same majority. Lincoln pointed out in his First Inaugural Address that, on key constitutional questions, the nation divides into majorities and minorities. However, on the key constitutional question of secession, he prevented a true consensus from emerging in the North by declaring martial law.
Secession. Lincoln opposed secession and started a bloody war to stop it. Jefferson never explicitly said, "I believe states have the legal right to secede." However, everything he ever said that touched on the subject was consistent with that right. He authored the greatest secessionist document in history, the Declaration of Independence. The core principles of the Declaration were arguably ensconced in the constitution at the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Jefferson supported state nullification of federal laws, a doctrine which, if not identical to secession, implied it, and which was seen as identical by opponents of both. If there is a right to nullify, this must be solely up to the discretion of the states, else it is not a right. If it is a right, it must include the right to withdraw from the union if the union attempts to nullify the nullification, that attempt being yet another and more serious act of usurpation by the federal government whose only appropriate remedy is secession.
Hannis Taylor called Jefferson's compact doctrine the "Pandora's Box" out of which flew the "closely related doctrines of nullification and secession," which he notes, with less than perfect foresight, "were extinguished once and forever by the Civil War." Jefferson's biographer, Willard Sterne Randall agrees:
"[Jefferson] forthrightly held that where the national government exercised powers not specifically delegated to it, each state 'has an equal right to judge . . . the mode and measure of redress.' . . . He was, he assured Madison, 'confident in the good sense of the American people,' but if they did not rally round 'the true principles of our federal compact,' he was 'determined . . . to sever [Virginia] from that union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government . . . in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.'" (Emphasis added)d
Standing armies. Jefferson thought large standing armies were a threat to liberty and an invitation to tyranny; Lincoln proved he was right.
Trial by jury. Jefferson was one of the leading advocates of trial by jury as early as the Declaration where it is mentioned. Lincoln was America’s greatest violator of this right.
National Bank. Lincoln supported a national bank; Jefferson opposed it.
Constitutional interpretation. Jefferson strictly construed the powers of the federal government; Lincoln’s Constitution was made of rubber.
Slavery. Jefferson has been unfairly maligned on this issue. Yes, he owned slaves. No, he did not free them. Jefferson was born into a world in which slavery was commonplace. Yet, Jefferson was arguably one of the greatest opponents of slavery of his time! He tried to condemn it in the Declaration of Independence, but his clause was deleted:
"[The King] has waged cruel war on human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery. . . " This passage "echoed seven years of his determined attempts to curtail the slave trade in Virginia and the spread of this murderous institution."
Lincoln’s record is well-known. Personally, he opposed it – one of the few sentiments he ever expressed – but officially, he promised to safeguard it where it existed. And let’s not forget, he was president of a slave federation: the United States, which held five slave states and one slave capital even after secession.
Habeas Corpus. Jefferson was his era’s greatest defender of habeas corpus; Lincoln its greatest enemy. Jefferson complained that the "eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws" was not protected in the new Constitution.
Lincoln in contrast, illegally suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and simply ignored an order by the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court to release a political prisoner. Jefferson listed "freedom of the person under the protection of the habeas corpus" one of the "essential principles of our government." (1st Inaugural Address, 1801).
Jefferson went so far as to criticize sham suspensions of the writ: "Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? . . . Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788)
Second Amendment. Jefferson was a strong supporter of the right to bear arms: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." (Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824, emphasis added) Lincoln not only ignored the Second Amendment, he perverted its intent – and undercut the premise of Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 46 – by calling out the militias of the northern states to fight against the militias of the Confederate States. His agents violated the Second Amendment rights of citizens in border states by systematically seizing their firearms.
The attempt to portray Lincoln as Jefferson’s fulfillment is foolish. Lincoln was a Lincoln in Jefferson’s clothing.
So, as you can see, any use of Jeffersonian principles by Walt is intentional deception. However, I wouldn't expect that your attention span would accomodate the reading of this in detail, and I am sure you will discount it as you usually do when presented with something that requires 5 minutes of thinking.
?
converse
2. Familiar discourse; free interchange of thoughts or views; conversation; chat.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Source, post 129.
published by whom?
To say that what the federal government is doing today has anything to do with the American Civil War is ludicrous - Walt
Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/885164/posts?page=116#116
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.