Home > Gwinnett.talk > Archives > 2007 > April > 01 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USMerry Xmas, teardrop tats don’t make cut
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
For the second year in a row, state Rep. Clay Cox (R-Lilburn), couldn’t get the Georgia Legislature to pass his proposed law making it legal to say “Merry Christmas” in public schools.
Rep. Melvin Everson’s bill to allow inmates to tattoo teardrops underneath their eyes (though that probably wasn’t the Snellville GOP House member’s intent) didn’t make it, either.
But Braselton and Lilburn will hold referendums within the next two years on allowing their cities to create “tax allocation districts,” which allow areas that need redevelopment to finance street lights and such with future tax collections. Voters in Lawrenceville and Norcross have a good shot at voting on TADs, too.
The reason why the Christmas and tattoo bills are dead (for now) and the TAD bills still are kicking is because Tuesday was the deadline for legislation to be passed by either the full House or Senate to have a chance of getting enacted into law.
The Braselton and Lilburn TAD bills have already passed. The Senate approved the Norcross version and the House adopted the Lawrenceville TAD bill.
Now we can’t really read last rites over any bill that didn’t make the deadline. Sometimes in the final hours of a legislative session, lawmakers can bring their dead bills back to life by simply stealing another bill, stripping it of its contents and inserting their bills in the shell left behind.
It isn’t fair. It isn’t nice.
But it does happen.
Permalink | Comments (18) | Post your comment | Categories: Gwinnett Insider
Comments
By Bruce Wilcox
April 1, 2007 8:10 AM | Link to this
When did they pass the Bill making it illegal to say “Merry Christmas in schools and why? Or is this one of those feel good Bills that attack a problem that does not exsist?
By Michael H. Smith
April 1, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
It’s a dirty job but somebody has to do it Rep. Cox. True, it is seemingly wasteful of good legislative time to pursue the legal utterance of Merry Christmas. That is, if it were not for an equally wasteful pursuit of judicial time spent to the contrary by the liberal elitists in this country, the ACLU and those misguided jurist lacking prudence in review stumbling all over the Constitution in fear of offending the political correctness that writes laws from the court’s bench.
In this case silencing utterance of Merry Christmas is betrayal of the Constitution. Government has, in very fact, by prohibiting any non-disruptive freely expressed religious utterances with God or Christ in mind written into law a respect for the religious establishment of “human secularism” by silencing all others in their belief of a God and their “voices of decent” against Godlessness.
By the way for any curious souls out there in the blog-o-sphere I do not believe in this Merry Christmas fantasy. However I fully support and respect the right of others to hoop it up, spend their last penny and dress up as foolishly as they like to celebrate what is to me paganism.
But hey, even the pagans got rights!
By inquiring minds
April 1, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this
Why no teardrop tattoos? Could they get something else on their face, like hearts or rose petals? What gives?
By inquiring minds
April 1, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
I had to look this up—
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_tattoo]
I had no idea about the symbolism of the teardrop. I’m also beginning to regret my shamrock tattoo (which, btw, was etched by a man with a teardrop tattoo. Really.)
By Bruce Wilcox
April 1, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
All I wanted was someone to show me a Bill or any Court ruling stating that it was illegal to say “Merry Christmas”in public schools? But when no proof can be found resorting to meaningless baffle will do for some.
By Michael H. Smith
April 1, 2007 6:17 PM | Link to this
Wow now that was a new low. Even for… well why stoop to that level.
A demand issued for someone to answer a question because it was asked should make one feel they really have to respond to such silliness otherwise a vain assertion is made that because no one chooses to respond to the blathering crap the repulsive inquisitor has emitted, then some must be satisfactorily belittled by his stench.
Anyone got a poopie scooper?
By inquiring minds
April 1, 2007 7:54 PM | Link to this
Michael, Bruce your feud is boring, particularly when we could be talking about tattoos. Did you know that there are entire books written about prison tattoos? Yep, you can look it up.
Another thing: can we legislate which tattoos one can etch on their body? So inmates cannot have teardrops. Can they have spider webs? Or a ‘I <3 Jesus” tat? Who gets to decide?
Discuss.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 1, 2007 8:42 PM | Link to this
Just can’t make one example right Smith, didn’t think you could. Typical conservative mentality attack a problem that doesn’t exsist with a new law. Big government at it’s best.
inquiring minds, tatoos, are you serious, why should I care?
By Michael H. Smith
April 1, 2007 8:54 PM | Link to this
Yeah I knew about the tattoos and that they mean something especially in the joint, including the teardrop business. I’m not impressed, that is why I didn’t answer your question about tattoos. If you really do have a shamrock tattoo and you are not AB I strongly suggest you get it removed or blotted out even if you are Irish. Or you might find yourself something worse the ashamed or bored, especially if you end up in prison.
By inquiring minds
April 1, 2007 9:29 PM | Link to this
Oh, jeez, lighten up guys. Just for you two, I wrote my very first tattoo/prison haiku:
My shamrock misleads Luck o’ the Irish, indeed Keep soap on a rope
{bows}
By inquiring minds
April 1, 2007 9:37 PM | Link to this
Pretend like that is three lines.
{bows again, backing out of the room}
By Michael H. Smith
April 1, 2007 9:44 PM | Link to this
Again in underlining my previous statement I applaud Rep. Cox for defending in as much as he can a principle if not the very establishment clause of the first amendment that has been under attack since the mid ‘40s as careful review of the judicial chronology of cases concerning Christmas demonstrates.
http://www.llrx.com/features/christmas.htm
*Conclusion
The euphoric courtroom scenes following Judge Harper’s decision in Miracle on 34th Street have so far not been replicated inside the U.S. Supreme Court building. While the Supreme Court has effectively settled the question of whether the federal government should recognize the Christmas holiday, it still appears to have left unsettled the question of how it should be recognized. The body of literature that has critiqued the Christmas cases may differ on many points but they do share one common theme; the Court has created confusion by placing a stronger emphasis on the context in which Christmas symbols are placed than on the symbols themselves. The three-prong Lemon test, the two-prong endorsement test, and the “plastic reindeer rule” have all failed to provide a coherent methodology for analyzing the Establishment Clause in the context of Christmas, and we are therefore left waiting for a miracle on 1st Street NE to help resolve this most seasonal of issues.*
|
More on the ACLU, the ADF, Christmas and religious freedoms @ loudobbs.com:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/19/ldt.00.html
The courts are clearly in need of legislative guidance on this issue.
By Bonedaddy
April 1, 2007 9:55 PM | Link to this
Good God! Can I say that?
By Bruce Wilcox
April 1, 2007 10:25 PM | Link to this
Still not one ruling or law stating that it is illegal to say “Merry Christmas” in public schools. Again much to do about nothing and we will make sure a law is passed to protect nothing, including talk radio hosts and Lou.
By Michael H. Smith
April 1, 2007 10:47 PM | Link to this
@Bonedaddy
At least for now.
Amazing the illogical liberal mind. Not one law or ruling - court made law - stating you can have global warming anywhere. Therefore the illogical liberal mind should say until the ocean levels rise creating Atlantic beaches in Buckhead these ridiculous environmental and Cafe laws are just more big unnecessary government based on Hollywood movies.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 1, 2007 11:38 PM | Link to this
I realize that I should have seen the connection, environmental laws, CAFE standards and the “Merry Christmas” law. That is far better than any court ruling or law, I stand corrected.
By Michael H. Smith
April 2, 2007 2:18 AM | Link to this
The principle is the connection. You don’t have to wait for a mountain to fall on you before deciding to move out of the way because there is or is not a law or court made law that says you can or cannot move.
Rep Cox and the other legislators do not have to wait for some school district in Georgia to react as the one in Plano Texas did in order to wait for a court case to satisfy some liberal elite before making anything legal or illegal. Feel good or feel bad.
Now you really do stand corrected.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 2, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
Texas is now full of elitist liberals? A school district that elects it’s ruling board, so this Bill would over ride the will of “The People”. Just like Sunday sales of booze, I am glad you have a government to protect conservatives is so much need of guidance.