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.
I see Jim Robinson is still letting you hang around, eh?
The 13th and 14th amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stuff like that.
Walt
The 10th amendment has nothing to do with the ACW. Congress is given the clear power to provide for the common defense and general welfare in the Constitution.
And, it is not only the Constitution, but also the laws that are the supreme law of the land.
See the Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795 and the Judiciary Act of 1789.
The 10th amendment never came into play in the rebellion.
Walt
I note, in your flipant response, that you ignore the inequalities that I mentioned. Why in your mind are some "equalities" more equal then others?
Instead of simply responding as you did, why not address the lack of equality that the government forces upon us?
That's good, right?
Walt
The 10th amendment, as you know, gave all powers not specifically mentioned, to the states. 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.
Additonal comment on the 10th Amendment, I have often wondered why no one has filed (at least to my knowledge), a lawsuit against an act of Congress, as being a violation of the 10th Amendment.
I wonder if you also consider the participants in the rebellion of 1776 to be traitors? After all they defied the laws of the land at the time.
Now, you seem to be suggesting that by defending the actions of the Confederacy, I am also advocating a support of slavery. Nice try. Intelligent people can separate the various causes for the War of Succession, and argue the overall merits of the case on apoint by point basis. Or at least they should be able to.
On Slavery, hands down, the South loses and I have no support for them on this issue. But when one considers the other various reasons, then I do support the South and their cause was just.
Too many people are blinded by the one over riding issue.
Also, if Lincoln could have, he would have enede the war and retained Slavery. His reasons for issuing the Emancipation was not fully out of kindness for the downtroden.
...there you have it! Straight from the mouth of the south-hating PC-monger who also made these statements:
"All these deaths of U.S. citizens --the death of EVERY U.S. citizen killed by Arab terror in the United States, can be laid directly at the feet of George Bush I." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=452#448
"I'll say again that based on what I knew in 1992, I would vote for Bill Clinton ten times out of ten before I would vote for George Bush Sr." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?q=1&&page=401#420
"As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432
"First of all, the AJC [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] is -not- an "ultra-leftist" newspaper, and you know it." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/13/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784464/posts?page=70#70
"I feel that admiration for Reagan has rightly diminished over time, and rightly so." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432
"I don't retract any of that." - WhiskeyPapa in reference to the liberal statements found above, 11/26/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/796067/posts?page=146#146
"If you non-U.S. citizens are wondering what the electoral college is and what bunch of ninnies thought it up: The US Constitution was written by rich white men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Randolph, and others. They wrote it for the benefit of rich white men like themselves. They didn't trust the common man --at all--, hence the college of electors, who didn't (and don't) necessarily have to vote for the candidate that carries their state. Here in Georgia, I didn't vote for Al Gore. I voted for nine Democratic Party hacks that promise to vote for Al when the college meets in December. Yeah, I know its crazy, but it works." - Walt, aka WhiskeyPapa, explaining the electoral college to Europeans, 11/12/00
SOURCE: soc.history.war.world-war-ii newsgroup
"What the Reagan adminstration did was worse than Watergate. But he was a nicer guy than Nixon, so he skated. Also, despite all the Reagan worship, I don't think he ever made a tough decision." - WhiskeyPapa, 3/10/03
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/859649/posts?page=38#38
"I think the Bushes both to incompetent clowns." - WhiskeyPapa, 3/10/03
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/859649/posts?page=38#38
"I'd vote for Gore again over Bush jr. It was a no-brainer that if Junior was elected, we'd have Senior running things, and I bet he is. Surely no one thinks that Junior has enough brains to get all this rolling. Cheney and Powell are going to run the war -- to clean up the mess they made 12 years ago." - WhiskeyPapa, 3/18/03
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/866612/posts?page=19#19
It is a matter of fact that WhiskeyPapa, aka Walt, is a left wing Bush-hating, Reagan-hating, south-hating Clinton-Gore voting PC monger. His remarks on this thread are merely the latest in that same tradition. For whatever reason, he is still allowed post here and post things such as those I quoted here. Now don't get me wrong - I have no intentions of seeking his removal...only publicizing his true leftist colors to the otherwise unsuspecting who assume that he is, along with almost everyone else around here, a conservative.
That is what he indicated to Horace Greeley in August, 1862.
After black soldiers were enlisted to fight for the Union, Lincoln began clearing the way for equal rights for them. That is why Booth shot him.
Walt
The EP was a war measure.
There is also no doubt that President Lincoln personally detested slavery, and thought it should be eliminated. That is why his election was a clarion call to the slave power to throw down the lawful government.
Walt
And Congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare. The 10th amendment doesn't even apply. You alo totally ignore the fact that the Constitution states that the laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are also the supreme law of the land. That includes the Militia Act and the Judiciary Act. The 10th amendment doesn't apply.
You've been duped.
Jefferson Davis, citing language identical to that in the US constitution, said that the federal government COULD coerce the states:
"The Confederate Constitution, he [Davis] pointed out to [Governor] Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."
--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433
Note that quote from J. Davis: "provide for the common defense"? Ouch. Surely if Jefferson Davis could raise troops on this basis, Abraham Lincoln could.
After all, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it, as you will admit, predates the secessionist document.
Confederate apologists strain at the gnat and swallow the camel:
"In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign state, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union...In discussing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument as not emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. "
And:
"To the formation of a league, such as was the confederation, the State sovereignties were certainly competent. But when "in order to form a more perfect union," it was deemed necessary to change the alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of deriving its powers from them, was felt and acknowledged by all... "
And:
If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect that it would be this -- that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result, necessarily, from its nature. It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all; and acts for all. Though any one state may be willing to control its operations, no state is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, have decided it, by saying, "this constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof,: shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the state legislatures, and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the states, shall take an oath of fidelity to it. The government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the constitution or laws of any state, to the contrary notwithstanding."
And:
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or of creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people," thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair reading of the whole instument... It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objectives designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects,, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That is the idea entertained by the framers of the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from its language. Why else were some of the limitations, found in the 9th section of the 1st article, introduced? ....
The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of the nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done, by confining the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conclusive to the end. "
--John Marshall, Chief Justice, writing in McCullough v. Maryland, 1819
Jiminy Cricket, Jefferson Davis sounds just like Chief Justice Marshall!
The idea of legal unilateral state secession under our system is nonsense.
Walt
Now don't get me wrong - I have no intentions of seeking his removal...only publicizing his true SIP colors to the otherwise unsuspecting who assume that he is, along with almost everyone else around here, a Republican.
Actually GOTCrap has an almost Ahab like hatred/obsession with Abraham Lincoln. He's projected this hatred on anyone perceived to defend Lincoln, including ol Walt. He can be pretty viscious when cornered (like most weasels) so watch your fingers..
GOPCapitalist => SIPDemogogue
Good for you, but Walt may relieve you of duty for this.
He may even call it "manure", "lies", or even worse. Watch out for incoming.
What is the point of having a state seal and a state flag if your state seal is on the flag? Let's see a parade of the other state flags and see how many of them are simply a combination of other state symbols? If they are - They are stupid too.
Great post. Sounds just like what your ancestors said about Boston, Lincoln, and the business community thriving on Southern trade with England.
Mercantilism vs. Southern Economy in 1861 is just the same as Atlanta vs. rural Georgia is today.
Forget about the "big picture" and live your life as you want, and as your ancestors should have had the right to do in 1861.
and i predict right now that it will be shot down and the post-1956 flag will fly again EVERYWHERE in GA!
the CSA desendents will accept NOTHING less. NOT now, NOT ever!
free dixie,sw
i keep suggesting that he head over to DU, where they'll LOVE his anti-southron ideas, but alas, NO SUCH LUCK!
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.