The American jury has long been a protection of the lives and liberties of her citizens. The jury system protects our individual freedom by prohibiting the government from taking us to prison unless it can prove to every single person on that jury that we have committed a crime. This jury of our peers must not only be unanimous in their judgment, but must agree "beyond a reasonable doubt," the highest legal burden in our judicial system. The fundamental protection of the jury system allows each us to go about our daily lives secure in the knowledge that, if faced with a criminal accusation, our liberty will ultimately be in the hands of our fellow citizens.
As I mentioned on Facebook recently (which is ironic), after observing the herd-like behavior and general lack of discernment exhibited by many of my "peers" on social networking sites, I don't have nearly as much faith in the jury process as I once held. That being said, bench trials might be more streamlined, less dramatic, and of course cheaper; but there's only one arse sitting on that bench. And you better hope the owner of that arse has got the smarts and integrity to see and understand the truth.
A three-judge appeals court panel rejected [the emergency] request [to disburse voucher funds] on Monday, saying it was premature to offer such a ruling without a written order from Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood.
Submitted by usernamehere on Mon, 07/29/2013 - 10:50am
Since state legislators continue to pass bills in violation of their oaths to the state and federal constitutions, it is again time to rearm citizens with the basics of our shared government -- the constitution.
The NC Constitution speaks directly to voting rights and suffrage. In fact, Article VI, Section 1. of the NC Constitution is literally titled "Who may vote." It doesn't get any more plain than that.
Submitted by usernamehere on Wed, 04/10/2013 - 9:29am
Since idiot state legislators continue to file bills in violation of their oaths to the state and federal constitutions, it's time to rearm citizens with the basics of our shared government -- the constitution.
The US Constitution is what binds us together to form a country. The North Carolina Constitution is wholly subservient to the US Constitution. Why? Because the North Carolina Constitution says so.
As it happens, North Carolina is - and has long been, and with good reason - among the many states in the union that already have "right-to-work" laws on the books, which we wholeheartedly endorse. In other words, it is already the case that no one here can require an applicant to join a union as a condition of employment.
For the thousandth time, "right-to-work" laws have nothing to do with protecting workers, and everything to do with protecting management. And if you would pluck your head out of your ass for just a few seconds to ponder how this:
"I don't see a constitutional violation, I think that there's a lot of disappointment from those who opposed the bill last night, but disappointment doesn't equal unconstitutionality,” said Jeanette Doran with the NCICL.
With Art Pope's hand firmly on her fancy leash, Ms. Doran is paid not to see a constitutional violation when it serves the Puppymaster's agenda. How could it be otherwise?
Submitted by usernamehere on Tue, 09/13/2011 - 10:05pm
Now that the NC General Assembly has finished passing the Does-Nothing-About-Divorce Amendment, it's time to look at the text of the bill and discover the truth about the law.
First, it's been reported that the amendment will be on a ballot in May. It ain't necessarily so. Take a look at the text of the bill. It reads:
The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the State at a statewide election to be held on the date of the first primary in 2012, which election shall be conducted under the laws then governing elections in the State
Berger doesn’t want to present voters with a “California-style ballot” with “page after page” of amendments in 2012, because he thinks voters won’t give them due consideration.
But he said lawmakers could also consider brand-new amendments. “It’s my understanding under the rules, it would not have to already have been introduced – it’s something that could be introduced in the constitutional issues session, so there may be any number of others.”
Which can also be described as a "free-for-all". Or a clusterfuck. Whatever the case, it's about as far away from Conservatism as you can get.
BlueNC is a labor of love. Views expressed by any particular community member are simply that: the views of that particular member. If you have questions or concerns about the content you see here, please contact us.