Constitution

With five simple words, Mecklenburg County Commissioner Bill James revealed the true purpose for a constitutional amendment filed in North Carolina’s legislature in 2011 that would ban all relationship recognitions for same-gender couples.

“We don’t want them here.”

The “them” the amendment proponent referred to with the Raleigh News & Observer was easy to identify.

The “them” was me.

In order to thwart the Winston Salem Occupy Wallstreet group.

Winston-Salem City Council considers changing free-speech ordinance
By: LAURA GRAFF | Winston-Salem Journal
Published: December 20, 2011

With no public notice and no public input, the Winston-Salem City Council on Monday night considered temporarily changing the city ordinance governing free speech and public assembly to prohibit such activities on City Hall grounds

This was proposed by Dan Besse, city council member, who some may remember for his campaigns for Lt Gov.

(FNS - Washington, New Germany, April 17, 1947) America’s new Führer, Adolf Hitler, announced today that his official War History would in fact acknowledge that one of the biggest contributing factors to the defeat of the Allies was the insistence of the former United States of America on sticking to its Balanced Budget Amendment, which left them unable to fund the wartime conversion of the US economy for the benefit of the Alliance.

“All those ideas Mr. Roosevelt spoke of”, said Hitler, “Lend-Lease, modular shipbuilding, War Bonds, secret weapons…in the end, all of them were just words, since the Americans’ Congress was never willing to allow the country to fully fund its war effort.”

In our efforts to form a more perfect Union we look to the Constitution for guidance for how we might shape the form and function of Government; many who seek to interpret that document try to do so by following what they believe is The Original Intent Of The Founders.

What if anyone could stockpile any weapons they wanted, as long as they were made in North Carolina? Representative Glen Bradley seems to believe you should have that right.

Rep. Bradley is a new member of the North Carolina House, winning election with only 51% of the vote. Nevertheless, he has been busy in the house. He's the primary sponsor on five bills that contain invoke the word "freedom" more than Mel Gibson in Braveheart. One of these bills, House Bill 241, would make "a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition" fully manufactured within the borders of the State of North Carolina not subject to federal law.

There are rumors, Madame Governor, that you don't think vetoing the latest assault on North Carolina's constitutional integrity is worth the trouble. Republicans are seeking to pass legislation that directly and unarguably conflicts with Article 1, Section 5 of the North Carolina Constitution. And you're going to freakin' ignore it?

Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.

Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.

I'm no lawyer, but this would seem to make moot any action being considered by the General Assembly that attempts to undermine Congress' Affordable Care Act. As the Chief Executive of our state, you have a moral and legal obligation to veto this piece-of-crap legislation.

There's a new Fourth Amendment case before the Supreme Court (link). In brief, the police forced their way into an apartment because "they smelled burning marijuana" [good reporting would say "they said they smelled..."].

What really angers me is that I know exactly how the so-called "conservative" justices on the court will rule. The great defenders of the Constitution, the great Tea Party favorites, Scalia and Thomas will side with the police. Yes, they will side with the government. It's always this way with these people: that's why I use the phrase "so-called", because they simply do not believe in limited government power. Thank God to Kagen and Sotomayor for standing up against this attack on our Bill of Rights.

Republican/conservatives like to advocate for constitutional amendments that, at best, do little to advance society and might, if passed, hurt law abiding Americans. I refer to the proposed antiflag burning amendments and DOMA type nonsense.
I would like to propose a constitutional amendment to reform our electoral process so as to be beyond the reach of the Robert's SCOTUS. I would like to see the following:

No electioneering until the year of the election. No declaring of candidacy, no fund raising. (Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire might want to make adjustmnents)

All contributions to candidates must be from individuals and max out at $1000. (this could be indexed to inflation and adjusted every 10 years)

No issue ads within 30 days of an election. (If it's really an issue ad it shouldn't need to be close to an election)

All election money raised must be spent in that election cycle or donated to a nonprofit charity (no war chests).