2018 NC Constitutional Amendments

DurhamDad said:
My superblue Durm neighborhood is littered with lib signs saying to vote no on all six amendments, so I'll be darned if I am not at least voting for voter ID just to spite them. Prob will vote for victim's rights improvements too.
Click to expand...

I am voting for all 6 just to spite them.

Note that Constitutions never spell out the letter of law in detail, so saying that they aren’t specific enough is silly. For voter ID for example, you can’t say what the details are because they change over time as to what is possible and appropriate to use for ID.
 
I am not sure where I will fall, ultimately. But it needs to be known that >any< of them that fail will be a football for the Dems to spike. For better or worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BigWaylon said:
Do we have a thread on this anywhere? Six are proposed, and early voting opens on Wednesday 10/17. Here's a paragraph I borrowed from a N&O article:

All six amendments were written by the Republican-controlled General Assembly, and the North Carolina GOP is asking people to vote in favor of all six. Meanwhile, the N.C. Democratic Party is asking people to vote against all six.

The last sentence makes we want to vote for all six...but I'm not convinced that's what I want/need to do.
Click to expand...

I've got to look at the proposed amendments before I give any specific "yea" or "nay" on my part.

HOWEVER, words of wisdom from my own father way back when I was a teen and not yet of voting age and a constitutional amendment to Indiana's constitution was on the ballot was to look long and hard at ANY proposed amendment by EITHER party.

Dad, though a Republican to the core, had a deep seated mistrust of politicians and political motives, and the fact that he was a Republican did not, in itself, enamor him to the party at all times. In fact, part of that discussion he had with me was to point out that if EITHER party held overall power too long, the people would suffer for it.

So, when looking at these amendments to the NC constitution, I'd strongly advise my NC cousins here to look beyond what they're "proposed" to do, and their associated reasons, into what they would ALLOW your politicians to do in the future.
 
Last edited:
IrishCannon said:
Protection of people to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife? Ummmm that's really vague. Is this even being threatened? What's the point?

And the victim rights...sounds nice, but what does that entail?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is threatened in other areas. Areas where folks are leaving to come here. My primary reason for supporting it is that it makes hunting the first step in wildlife mgmt. No more deer contraception and should make sharpshooters harder to use. Imo it will open up hunting opportunities and prevent non hunting solution except in extreme cases.

The victims right mostly strengthens wording that is already there and lets the state punish offending agencies. About 80-90% of it is already law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
To expound on the example I mentioned above, where my Dad was talking about a constitutional amendment to Indiana's constitution as a life lesson:

The amendment in question was one that affected the ability of Indiana to spend money. (This was back in the late 1970s.) In Dad's view, it would have allowed Indiana to spend more than it took in in taxes. Indiana already has it written into its constitution (Article 10 Finance, Section 5) that Indiana is not allowed to spend more money than it takes in except under certain, narrow conditions...and then only for a limited time. The wording is thus:

No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted, on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: to meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State Debt; to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense.

Further, Article 13 Indebtedness, Section 1 states:

No political or municipal corporation in this State shall ever become indebted, in any manner or for any purpose, to an amount, in the aggregate, exceeding two per centum on the value of the taxable property within such corporation, to be ascertained by the last assessment for State and county taxes, previous to the incurring of such indebtedness; and all bonds or obligations, in excess of such amount, given by such corporations, shall be void: Provided, That in time of war, foreign invasion, or other great public calamity, on petition of a majority of the property owners in number and value, within the limits of such corporation, the public authorities in their discretion, may incur obligation necessary for the public protection and defense to such amount as may be requested in such petition.


Seems pretty clear, right?

And yet, there has been, and is now, an ongoing effort to pass a "balanced budget amendment" in Indiana.

So, the real question is "what does this amendment ALLOW the state legislature to do that it cannot legally do now?" Let's take a look (the underlined portions are the proposed portions of the amendment which would be inserted into the Indiana constitution):


Section 5. (a) No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted, on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: to meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State Debt; to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense.

(b) The following definitions apply to this section only for purposes of the limits on the State budget under this section:

(1) "Revenue" means all income received by the state general und and all other state funds, excluding the proceeds of bonds or other loans.
(2) "Expense" means the ordinary operating costs of State government, including any debt service payments made during the biennial budget period.
(c) The total amount of expense appropriations enacted by the General Assembly for a biennial budget may not exceed the estimated revenue of the State in the biennial budget period.

(d) A State budget enacted by the General Assembly must appropriate money for the State's prefunded pension funds in the amount necessary to actuarially fund the accrued liability of all such pension funds during the budget period.

(e) If expenses exceed actual revenue received by the State when reconciled at the close of a biennial budget period, the subsequent biennial budget must subtract any shortfall from the projected revenue available for that subsequent biennial budget.

(f) The requirements under subsections (c) and (d) may be suspended if at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives and at least two-thirds of the members of the Senate vote to suspend the requirement.

(g) A court that orders a remedy pursuant to any case or controversy arising under this section may not order any remedies other than a declaratory judgment or such other remedies that are specifically authorized by the General Assembly in a law implementing this section.



OK, let's look at this:

(b)(1) defines what "revenue" is. Note that it specifically excludes "proceeds of bonds or other loans", and yet these proceeds ARE income to the state. In fact, they're specifically FOR income to the state. So the legislatures want permission NOT to consider this income as "revenue" when, in fact, it DOES constitute revenue. In effect, it now allows the state to say "Oh, look! We don't have enough money!" Which in turn sets them up to increase taxes and/or go into debt under Section 5 "casual deficits".

(c) says the state expense appropriations for a biennial budget can't exceed the estimated revenue of the state for that period. Well, they're ALREADY supposed to have a balanced budget, so why restate this? Oh...and don't forget, they redefined "revenue" and now they may be "short"...therefore increase taxes OR fall under the "casual deficits in the revenue" and then go into debt.

(d) talks about state funded pensions. What they're talking about here ALREADY falls under balanced budget concerns. Why must this be inserted? Except, potentially, to enable them to say "Oh, look! We're short on funds!" and here we go again.

(e) talks about expenses exceeding the actual revenue by the state at the close of the biennial budget period, the NEXT biennial budget must pay for it. Sounds good to me. Except for the fact that they redefined "revenue" and may now not be able to pay for those expenses...therefore coming under the "casual deficit" clause of Section 5.

(f) AH- HAH! HERE IT IS, THE MEAT AND POTATOES BURIED UNDER THE OTHER FLIM-FLAM! This says that the state can vote itself out of the requirements of (c) THE BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT and (d) THE MAKING GOOD ON PAST BUDGET FAILURES. Note that the Indiana constitution currently makes NO ALLOWANCES for the state to do any such thing under Section 5!

(g) THIS part here deliberately HOBBLES the Indiana state supreme court from making the state General Assembly fiscally responsible for maintaining a balanced budget. It says that the General Assembly CANNOT be held legally responsible BY LAW. A declaratory judgement is no more than the court saying "you were/were not a bad boy", without any authority to direct an equitable remedy, which are injunctions or specific performance.


THIS IS THE DANGER DAD WARNED ME ABOUT.
 
^ A great illustration of one of the main reasons why people hate lawyers so much. There is no excuse for such weasel-wording, when plain English will do (and, despite all their pontificating, it WILL do). Laws and constitutions are not novels, able to be read at one's leisure! They have a direct and disproportionate impact on the lives of people. Elegant design of a document makes it easy to understand, not hard!
 
My wife is hounding me to give her my opinion on the amendment changes and I am actually torn, on one hand I want to vote yes and get them passed as a big FU to Cooper and the NC Dems, on the surface the proposed changes all seem like something I would normally support, but I have to ask myself “what happens when the other team has the ball” and it gives me pause on a couple of the issues.

Then I have to stop and remind myself that at the end of the day it doesn’t matter if they have a D or an R next to their name, they’re all snakes in the grass and how will they use the proposed changes to screw over the people of NC?
 
Tarowah said:
they’re all snakes in the grass and how will they use the proposed changes to screw over the people of NC?
Click to expand...
This ^^^^ is very true.

One needs to question why these are being proposed as amendments. It makes me suspect that there is something funny.
 
 
IrishCannon said:
Protection of people to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife? Ummmm that's really vague. Is this even being threatened? What's the point?

And the victim rights...sounds nice, but what does that entail?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The protection to hunt and fish makes it a right and not a privilege. Several states have passed the same thing. This is one that everyone needs to support especially if you hunt or fish. I really hate they tossed some of the others in with this one.

The Judicial vacancy one I do not like and I doubt it would hold up in court if challenged.
 
Just got here and 8th in line. Shouldn't be too bad.
 
Voted this afternoon on the way home in Erwin. I parked a ways off so I could identify the pollsters and deliberately avoid them. Some dumb bitch ran over to me to give me her sample ballot (clearly a democrap) and asked if I was going in to vote. I replied yes, to which she responded that she had something to give me to assist me in making my decisions.

I told her I didn't need to carry in any trash with me, because after all, it's all trash and I discard it. You should have seen the look of disgust on her face. "Trash!?!?! This ain't no trash." She retorted.

I had the biggest shit eating grin. Guess I let how I intended to vote out of the bag. I simplyour replied I did my own research and could make an informed decision without guidance.

Hahahahaha. Man I really wish I had recorded that.
 
CCW007 said:
The protection to hunt and fish makes it a right and not a privilege.
Click to expand...

It says it's a right, then says that it can be controlled by the legislature. So it's only a "right" subject to their whims with no challenge because it says right there they can regulate it in any way.

I just don't get it.
 
BigWaylon said:
I'm not going to say yes or no, but you have to take the emotion out of it.

How many times on here have I seen the argument people either need to be kept locked up, or let loose. And if they're let loose, all their rights should be restored.

If he was found guilty, and let out at 6, hasn't he paid his dues according to the laws we have? Do we notify victims of all types of crimes that the perp is getting out?
Click to expand...
Not if it was my daughter, I’d want to know where and when he’s released.
No, the mods won’t need to scrub that in the future, I don’t have s daughter. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Pink_Vapor said:
Take it with a grain of salt, it’s from a leftist Mecklenburg lawyer.

I’ll be voting for photo ID, and studying the others more.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it convinced me to vote No (or Yes). :p

...just that it helped a little.

For the record, I went with two Ayes and four Nays. :cool:
 
That was my voting algorithm years ago when I paid less attention. Do the opposite of whatever “The Independent” (a lefty free paper in the Triangle area) endorsed.
 
The Judicial appointment and the Ethics amendments are firm NO votes for me.

- Judicial appointment...boils down to the Governor being able to appointment a vacancy not just through the end of the terms but for a FULL term. In other words, taking away the right of the people to vote for the Judgesl

- Ethics...the short description of the amendment makes it sound like they're creating a NEW ethics board with 8 members - 4 Rs and 4Ds. What it really is doing to REDUCING the current ethics board from 9 to 8. The way the board is currently constructed, there are 4 Rs, 4Ds and 1 NONPARTISAN that gets selected by the 8 Rs/Ds. In other words, the tie breaking vote is a non-partisan member the ONLY member that is not, by law, an R or a D.
 
I was talking to a friend today about the right to hunt and fish amendment. If hunting and fishing are rights, then by all rights (aha!) the state can't make us purchase licenses to exercise them.
 
Jayne said:
It says it's a right, then says that it can be controlled by the legislature. So it's only a "right" subject to their whims with no challenge because it says right there they can regulate it in any way.

I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

You will not get away from regulation in wildlife management. Not only will you not, you shouldn't either. Lack of management is what extirpated elk in nc. Nearly did the same to turkeys. And drove whitetail deer numbers way down as well. At this point, with proper laws and management, there are more whitetail deer harvested per year than existed in the state at certain points. I see deer, turkeys, and bear in areas I NEVER saw them as a kid hunting 30 years ago. In high school, my best friends family was approached by NCWRC to allow them to plant turkeys on their property. That planting of turkeys is the reason South Mtn's game lands have turkey now, and most of eastern Burke county with it. That was about 30 years ago. I had never seen a turkey outside the mountains until then. Sportsmen were the driving force for wildlife conservation via state and federal agencies and for the Pittman-Robertson act that taxes outdoor gear to fund that conservation. It does not just happen on it's on.


Now to dig into the amendment. I'll bold my text.

Sec. 38. Right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.
The right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good.

We currently don't have a problem with the above. But some states do. And if we wait too long, it can become a real problem. IMO, with the influx of folks that don't have a heritage of hunting and the side they tend to vote for, it's the best time to make this move. If nothing else, it shores up what most of the state thinks. For now.

The people have a right, including the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to laws enacted by the General Assembly and rules adopted pursuant to authority granted by the General Assembly to (i) promote wildlife conservation and management and (ii) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.

Parse this one out carefully. Yes, it lays out that there are laws involved. And following my intro, we (sportsmen) asked for them and for the most part they have been wildly successful in promoting game conservation and growth in NC. And not just game animals either. So what will those laws be focused on? First (i) they will focus on promoting wildlife conservation and management. Second, (ii) preserving the future of hunting and fishing. So that is the lens which the NCWRC and the legislature will be forced to view hunting and fishing in the future. For the record, that's pretty much the current mission of the NCWRC. But again, this is about future protection, not current.

Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

This is big. IMO, this helps open up hunting opportunities. Particularly in areas where those that don't like hunting want to try some of the stranger ideas out there. Like deer contraception. Which is an absolute failure. It keeps bucks in a perpetual rut and does in a perpetual estrous cycle. I'm sure they would tell me that killing an animal is not in that animal's best interest. But making the breeding season perpetual is not in the herds best interest. Hunting is the most effective means of management. And this line makes hunting the preferred means of management. IMO, that's a great step.


Nothing herein shall be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain."

And this protects private property owners. Just because you have property and game does not mean you have to let the public access it.
 
chiefjason said:
You will not get away from regulation in wildlife management. Not only will you not, you shouldn't either. Lack of management is what extirpated elk in nc. Nearly did the same to turkeys. And drove whitetail deer numbers way down as well. At this point, with proper laws and management, there are more whitetail deer harvested per year than existed in the state at certain points. I see deer, turkeys, and bear in areas I NEVER saw them as a kid hunting 30 years ago. In high school, my best friends family was approached by NCWRC to allow them to plant turkeys on their property. That planting of turkeys is the reason South Mtn's game lands have turkey now, and most of eastern Burke county with it. That was about 30 years ago. I had never seen a turkey outside the mountains until then. Sportsmen were the driving force for wildlife conservation via state and federal agencies and for the Pittman-Robertson act that taxes outdoor gear to fund that conservation. It does not just happen on it's on.


Now to dig into the amendment. I'll bold my text.

Sec. 38. Right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.
The right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good.

We currently don't have a problem with the above. But some states do. And if we wait too long, it can become a real problem. IMO, with the influx of folks that don't have a heritage of hunting and the side they tend to vote for, it's the best time to make this move. If nothing else, it shores up what most of the state thinks. For now.

The people have a right, including the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to laws enacted by the General Assembly and rules adopted pursuant to authority granted by the General Assembly to (i) promote wildlife conservation and management and (ii) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.

Parse this one out carefully. Yes, it lays out that there are laws involved. And following my intro, we (sportsmen) asked for them and for the most part they have been wildly successful in promoting game conservation and growth in NC. And not just game animals either. So what will those laws be focused on? First (i) they will focus on promoting wildlife conservation and management. Second, (ii) preserving the future of hunting and fishing. So that is the lens which the NCWRC and the legislature will be forced to view hunting and fishing in the future. For the record, that's pretty much the current mission of the NCWRC. But again, this is about future protection, not current.

Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

This is big. IMO, this helps open up hunting opportunities. Particularly in areas where those that don't like hunting want to try some of the stranger ideas out there. Like deer contraception. Which is an absolute failure. It keeps bucks in a perpetual rut and does in a perpetual estrous cycle. I'm sure they would tell me that killing an animal is not in that animal's best interest. But making the breeding season perpetual is not in the herds best interest. Hunting is the most effective means of management. And this line makes hunting the preferred means of management. IMO, that's a great step.


Nothing herein shall be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain."

And this protects private property owners. Just because you have property and game does not mean you have to let the public access it.
Click to expand...


Good breakdown of it. Thank you, Chief.
 
Pink_Vapor said:
Take it with a grain of salt, it’s from a leftist Mecklenburg lawyer.

I’ll be voting for photo ID, and studying the others more.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I always like to read stuff on why I should NOT DO OR BELIEVE SOMETHING from the most hostile people against it. Even if, or ESPECIALLY if, I can't stand them. It helps me do that stop and back up thing USN was talking about upstream. I get my ideological blinders on and just dont' think about how something might be flipped around and used against me sometimes. Reading a critic of a position I endorse doesn't hurt me. Sometimes, all I do is say "if this is the best argument they have against it, it must be good"

It is the same reason I read critical reviews on a book, or complaints about a product before I buy either one.
 
So, what of the amendment to make judicial appointments a task of the legislature, rather than the governor?
Who can educate me on the current procedure? Is it like the national process with the executive (governor) needing "advice and consent" or is it just a straight appointment?
Yes, I could google, but I am here in this thread and figured some of you might know.... and yes, I am lazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom