Which quotation reflects the perspective of most georgia legislators in 1956 regarding the georgia state flag? question 11 options:
a. “georgia’s flag should be updated to have a more modern look and design.” b.“georgia’s flag should be a symbol of integration and equal rights.”
c. “georgia’s flag does not need to be changed; it represents peace and
d. prosperity.” “georgia’s flag should be a symbol of our resistance to federal integration laws.”

The correct answer is D, as Legislators adopted a flag that had many Confederate symbols, just in middle the Civil Rights Movement.

The state flag used from 1956 to 2001 featured a Confederate battle pavilion, which some inhabitants found offensive, due to the memory of the Confederate States of America and its current use as a symbol of various white supremacist groups. African Americans, in particular, considered it offensive, since the emblem was initially approved not during the American Civil War, but in 1956, during the height of the fight against segregation during the Civil Rights Movement.

As already indicated in the 21st century, the defenders of the 1956 flag claimed that the pavilion was designed to commemorate the impending centennial of the American Civil War, which would take place in five years. Critics, including Georgia Congressman John Lewis, said it was only adopted as a symbol of racist protest, especially against the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. A federal appeals court ruled in 1997 that the 1956 resolution to change the flag was part of a broader legislative package that the Georgia General Assembly held that year, which included measures such as rejecting the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, and that followed the announcement by then Governor Marvin Griffin, that "the rest of the nation is looking to Georgia to lead the segregation."

d hope this

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation: