The State establishes police standards that must be followed by every law enforcement entity in the State. For that reason you can't have a chief of police who is a convicted felon; since that falls outside the police standards that are passed along to the police forces. The only reason why the Sheriff gets to go around those standards is because it is an elected position.

11/1/2010 7:43:36 PM

not anymore^

11/3/2010 11:06:20 AM

Out of curiosity, how many convicted felons have ever been elected Sheriff in NC? Of those that were elected, what negative outcome did their position cause?

What problem was this amendment addressing exactly? Why was it necessary? If you want to amend our Constitution, take the fucking unconstitutional God requirement out.

11/3/2010 3:51:52 PM

Well, it solved the problem of not allowing the ex felons to take the issue to court. If they had merely passed a law, the ex felons would have challenged it on GS 13-1:

Quote :

"§ 13-1. Restoration of citizenship. Chapter 13. Citizenship Restored Any person convicted of a crime, whereby the rights of citizenship are forfeited, shall have such rights automatically restored upon the occurrence of any one of the following conditions: (1) The unconditional discharge of an inmate by the State Department of Correction or the North Carolina Department of Correction, of a probationer by the State Department of Correction, or of a parolee by the Department of Correction; or of a defendant under a suspended sentence by the court. (2) The unconditional pardon of the offender. (3) The satisfaction by the offender of all conditions of a conditional pardon. (4) With regard to any person convicted of a crime against the United States, the unconditional discharge of such person by the agency of the United States having jurisdiction of such person, the unconditional pardon of such person or the satisfaction by such person of a conditional pardon. (5) With regard to any person convicted of a crime in another state, the unconditional discharge of such person by the agency of that state having jurisdiction of such person, the unconditional pardon of such person or the satisfaction by such person of a conditional pardon. (1971, c. 902; 1973, c. 251; c. 1262, s. 10; 1977, c. 813, s. 1; 1991, c. 274, s. 1.)"

Now they can get that removed from the law books as a contradiction to the state constitution and freely restrict the rights of anyone who's ever been convicted of a crime.

Other than that, it solved no problems, just another law written by a bunch of statist busy bodies who think they know better than the voters and that the people must be protected from themselves.

11/3/2010 8:04:04 PM

Never go full retard.

Quote :

"Now they can get that removed from the law books as a contradiction to the state constitution and freely restrict the rights of anyone who's ever been convicted of a crime."

Not at all the case.

Quote :

"Other than that, it solved no problems, just another law written by a bunch of statist busy bodies who think they know better than the voters and that the people must be protected from themselves."

It solves a huge problem that almost came to a head this year.

But I find it interesting that you bring such ridiculous rhetoric as statist into the mix here.

1. The authority of the sheriff and all municipalities and political subdivisions in this state are derived from the state. That is why it takes an act of the General Assembly for places like Elkin to institute an overgrown vegetation ordinance

2. The State, if it so desires can revoke the authority of the local sheriffs, such as the case of Mecklenburg County.

3. The people overwhelmingly supported this constitutional amendment. The voters decided, not a select few.

Come back from retardland.

11/3/2010 8:53:34 PM

Quote :

"Never go full retard. ... Not at all the case. "

There's nothing at all retarded about acknowledging the fact that the inevitable end that all governments travel towards is one of tyranny and oppression. This is unavoidable, and though democracy and laws may slow that march, in the end it will come to pass. Whether it is today or tomorrow, next year or next century, every step that we take in the progress of the destruction of rights makes the next step easier to take. Politicians have but one job, to make laws and to regulate, given enough time, they will regulate and make laws about everything because it is what they do. To deny this inevitable outcome is to deny history, both our own the of those that have come before us. Today we have decided felons are not worthy of the protections of the state, in contrast to our own laws. Tomorrow, the republicans may decide that muslims are not either, and when they decide that, they will use our current acceptance of laws which deny classes of people rights as support for their new law, just as you used our current acceptance of federal laws regarding felons and guns as support for this one.

Quote :

"It solves a huge problem that almost came to a head this year. "

And what problem was that? What is the problem you are trying to solve here? What felons are being elected sheriff?

Quote :

"But I find it interesting that you bring such ridiculous rhetoric as statist into the mix here. "

The belief that the state must protect the voters from their own choices is the very essence of a statist belief.

Quote :

"3. The people overwhelmingly supported this constitutional amendment. The voters decided, not a select few. "

A policy does not have to come from a select few to be a statist policy, it merely has to vest powers currently in the hands of the people into the state. And so the people have voted to give up their rights, as they have in the past, and as they will in the future, on the promise of a bit of safety and the hope that the politicians are better than the people.

11/4/2010 2:08:49 PM