|Midterm election preparations begin
||[Oct. 3rd, 2018|08:38 am]
I am intrigued by the context provided by this entry on the North Carolina Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment (2018). The first such state constitutional claim well predates the NRA, but there's definitely a NRA promotion going on. I'll vote no, because i don't need a right to kill things enshrined in my state constitution. I also think it's pretty incomplete: where's my right to use pesticides and to electrocute mosquitoes (with a by-catch of moths)? What about holding folks blameless when they hit critters with their car?
I admit i kill critters and i cause critters to be killed, but i'm not excited at enshrining it as a constitutional right. However, if it doesn't pass, i'll be stunned. Happy, but stunned.
The last four constitutional amendments are easy to vote no on.
That leaves North Carolina Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2018), which sounds fair but i was suspicious that justice was not being served. The ACLU points out the false equivalence between the rights of an accused and rights of a victim. Key is that the rights of an accused are in the context of the state: what the state can't do to a victim. Many of the rights in Marsy's Law seem to be victim to accused/convicted. The ACLU article i found goes on to point out ambiguity, conflict (what does victim privacy mean in the context of victim testifying -- something interesting to think about in last week's context).