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.
Hamilton didn't live in Virginia, genius. What did he have to do with the Virginia ratification?
It could not be more clear that the ratification is hinged on the terms stated.
It could not be more ridiculous to believe that. Most of the ratification documents contained clauses recommending changes and additions. Some were later incorporated, most were not. But for those states, like New Hampshire, who did not have their recommendations accepted are you suggesting that their ratifications were conditional, and that they can now leave? Virginia's ratification contained 20 assertions and 20 recommended amendments. Many were not adopted. But that does not nullify their ratification.
And the Virginia ratification contained one more line. It contained the sentance, "We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following..." and then appended a copy of the Constitution. So the Constitution was binding, regardless. And nowhere in that Constitution is a provision allowing for states to resume powers granted to the federal government. You can quote Hamilton all you want, but until you can quote the Constitution on this then you're wasting everyones time.
Good. I'm glad to see that you admit the federal government, with it's powers enumerated in the federal Constitution, LACK the power to prevent secession.
The Constitution specifically notes that ALL powers not DELEGATED to the federal government (by the Constitution), and those not prohibited (by the Constitution) to the states, remain with the states. It's a simple concept known as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. An amendment that was added (as were amendments I - IX) 'in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Constitution powers', so these 'declaratory and restrictive clauses' were added [from the Preamble to the BoR].
SORRY, but that's fact.
free dixie,sw
you're on a roll, fool. rave on!
free dixie,sw
We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following;
You're silly.
Duh! It's a legal phrase meaning 'THIS document' with it's conditions/stipulations. After this sentence came PROPOSED Amendments.
back into your room, MORON!
free dixie,sw
Hey Stugots..Granny Lee sucked as a tactical commander ok? You want to tell me why you think I'm wrong [and hopefully provide some specific examples] fine, but stop acting like you possess some superior intellect, when all you really are is just another neo-confederate Fessacchione whose opinion smells like a baby's used diaper. Capisci?
Dang you're good ;o)
from http://italian.about.com/library/slang:'fessacchione/a n. a f*****g idiot; (lit.): big idiot.'
That's why Lincoln offered Lee command of the Union forces FIRST - so the union would lose right?
When did Lincoln become such a genius to you? /sarcasm
Translate this...
When he was smart enough to offer the command to Lee ;o)
I've never said Lincoln was stupid, or that I hate him, but I most decidedly disagree with his methods.
You left off your usual "chief" or "Tonto".
Absolutely, although I think that Jefferson was being a bit of a romantic here. I don't want to think about what sort of nation we'd be lving in if there had been a violent revolution every generation or two. But yes, the ultimate right is that of revolution, which all the founding fathers recognized. But that doesn't automatically infer a righteous cause, legality or a guarantee of success. The southern states rolled the dice and lost. But I don't believe that the Constitution permitted their action.
Sorry, but that's crap.
If you can see that then you need to get your glasses checked. I admit nothing of the sort but maintain my position that unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states is not constitutional.
The Constitution specifically notes that ALL powers not DELEGATED to the federal government (by the Constitution), and those not prohibited (by the Constitution) to the states, remain with the states. It's a simple concept known as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
Once you've had your glasses checked please reread my earlier posts. I'm asking where in the Constitution it says that states may resume powers granted to the federal government whenever they feel like it. That's what you claim the Virginia ratification document calls for, but you have to show where the Constitution allows it. I'm waiting for one of you to point that clause out.
If not for partial quotes, misquotes, and quotes out of context you southron types would have no quotes at all. The passage reads, "We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed..."
They assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended by the convention, period. They announced to all that the Constitution was binding upon said people of Virginia. And nowhere in the Constitution does it allow that "the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them..." Period.
I had many kinsmen in the Confederate Army of Tennessee and one in the Army of Northern Virginia. Sir, they were not traitors, but patriots. That said, I had at least one ancestor who served the Union as a cavalryman. He was an East Tennesse Unionist. I am NOT ashamed of him, NOR my Confederate kin. They all had the courage of their convictions, a rare quality these days. I honor them all.
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.