Your View: Overturn ‘Choose Life’ license plate ruling
It was good to see that North Carolina will appeal the ruling against the Choose Life license plate. This ruling should highlight what is wrong with our judicial system today. A judge pushing an agenda and ignoring the actual law. This is not a freedom of speech issue at all, it simply a matter of following a procedure.
The ruling states that the state has to offer an opposing plate (Choose Death?). The state is actually under no legal obligation to offer that plate at this time. There is a procedure that every group that wants a special plate has to follow. The Right to Life people did this. The abortion supporters have failed, even when both houses of the Legislature were controlled by liberal Democrats, to get their plate approved by the Legislature. So here we have a judge saying that this group for some reason is “special” and should get their way anyway.
Following the rules is to difficult for this “special” group. This is how the agenda is forced on us all they time. I say that there are rules and following them is difficult but not nearly impossible so this ruling has no basis in law and should be overturned.
FairTax comments seem contradictory
I hope that I have not delayed too long these comments about your Dec. 12 Opinion page. At the top of that page was a nine-paragraph letter to the editor signed by Charles E. Baker.
Businesses don’t pay taxes; they only collect taxes. The simple fact I have just stated in a single sentence took Baker four paragraphs to convey.
He then used up four paragraphs complaining that the less affluent among us are being crushed by consumption taxes, before concluding in his final paragraph that these same unfortunates would be better off with more consumption taxes.
In that same paragraph, he revealed that he is a member of the FairTax cult. That explains everything.
Farther down the Dec. 12 Opinion page was your editorial about the John Hood column you ran the previous day. The subject of the column was requiring a photo ID for voting.
If I had read only the editorial about the column, I would not have recognized the column if I bumped into it downtown on a sunny day.
Here, verbatim, are the two key sentences from that column: “If you think that requiring voters to show identification will disenfranchise large numbers of citizens who would otherwise cast legitimate ballots, the research findings are inconsistent with your thesis. However, if you think that requiring voters to show ID will deter large numbers of non-citizens or felons who would otherwise cast fraudulent ballots, the same research findings are inconsistent with your thesis, as well.”
My concern is neither disenfranchisement nor deterrence; it is instead deference. What irks me about photo ID is what irks me about Thomasville’s privilege license ordinance: government’s insulting presumption that its citizens must be up to no good.
BARNEY W. HILL
YOUR VIEW POLLS
Will the agreement to avoid the “fiscal cliff” help or hurt the economy? What more must be done to solve the nation’s economic problems? In 30 words or less (no name, address required), email us your thoughts to email@example.com.