Home › Blogs › James's blog ›

Bob Orr finally weighs in on anti-marriage amendment: Says approximately nothing

Submitted by James on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 9:50am

Thank god NCCU chose to keep its distance from Mr. Orr and the Show. I wonder if never ending equivocation is in his NCICL job description.

Tagged:

Comments

Poor Bob

Submitted by James on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 10:02am.

It's sad to see a guy of such intellect having fallen so far.

Be sure to watch this all the way to the end where Orr essentially says, "I know this amendment is fucked up, but hey, Democrats did it too."

Embarrassing.

These legal eagles don't even know

Submitted by loftT on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 10:45am.

what to make of this amendment, how are average voters supposed to know what it means? They won't of course. Orr doesn't have the courage to just denounce it for the train wreck that it surely will be.

Progressives are the true conservatives.

Life imitates art

Submitted by James on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 11:05am.

A few points for Justice Orr

Submitted by scharrison on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 11:20am.

Your comment about the Constitution being "always about limiting" the government is off for a couple of reasons.

First, the Constitution doesn't only place limits on government, it also assigns responsibilities, to make sure future governments don't abrogate them:

Sec. 5. Conservation of natural resources.

It shall be the policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry, and to this end it shall be a proper function of the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions to acquire and preserve park, recreational, and scenic areas, to control and limit the pollution of our air and water, to control excessive noise, and in every other appropriate way to preserve as a part of the common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches, historical sites, openlands, and places of beauty.

Bolding mine. This current Republican-controlled General Assembly has attacked, on several fronts, the state's apparatus (DENR) that performs this Constitutionally-mandated function, to the point where that function simply cannot be performed properly. Consider this: If the GOP tried to get an Amendment passed that would remove that bolded section above, the voters would not only roundly reject it, they would probably tip over the damned voting booths.

If NCICL was worth its salt, it would protect the Constitution by fighting aganst those anti-environment efforts.

The second point: The Constitution also (albeit sparingly) deals with granting rights directly to citizens:

Sec. 4. Property of married women secured to them.

The real and personal property of any female in this State acquired before marriage, and all property, real and personal, to which she may, after marriage, become in any manner entitled, shall be and remain the sole and separate estate and property of such female, and shall not be liable for any debts, obligations, or engagements of her husband, and may be devised and bequeathed and conveyed by her, subject to such regulations and limitations as the General Assembly may prescribe. Every married woman may exercise powers of attorney conferred upon her by her husband, including the power to execute and acknowledge deeds to property owned by herself and her husband or by her husband.

But whether the Constitution is about limiting government, tasking government, or righting historical wrongs, it has never been about setting aside one subgroup of the populace for discrimination.

Until now, that is.

And Justice Orr's "There's nothing to worry about here, folks" approach to this Amendment proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that understanding and protecting said Constitution is not an overriding goal of NCICL.