“Sarah Stevens vs Anita Earls” Debate

June 24th, 2026 by Skip

What kind of true evidence should the jury get to hear?

It is hard to believe that the election on November 3rd for the Supreme Court of North Carolina may come down to one case decided in 1988 by the State Supreme Court, State v. Carter. 322 N.C. 709. The two candidates have split in writing on that question. Incumbent Justice Anita Earls wrote a vigorous dissent in State v. Rogers, 388 N.C. 453, 920 S.E2d 775 (2025) stating that State v. Carter should not be overruled. Representative Sarah Stevens in 2011 voted along with 81 members of the State House including 65 Republicans and 16 Democrats and with 48 members of the State Senate including 30 Republicans and 18 Democrats, signed by Governor Bev Perdue as follows: Section 2. of Session Law 2011-6,

“The General Assembly respectfully requests that the North Carolina Supreme Court reconsider, and overrule, its holding in State v. Carter that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule which exists under federal law does not apply under North Carolina State law.”

What does Justice Anita Earls know that almost the entire Legislature, the Democratic Governor, and three Democratic Supreme Court Justices did not see? The wisdom of Carter is for voters in 2026 to decide. Let me share with you the facts of that case in enough detail so that you understand the consequences.

Salient facts in State v. Carter:

Robert Lee Carter was convicted of first-degree rape and first-degree kidnapping.

Carter entered the home of the 78-year-old victim, forcing her outside through her backyard and a plowed field, raping her, severely beating her, and leaving her unconscious. He was convicted November 3, 1986. The key issue was whether taking Carter’s blood without a search warrant violated Article I, § 20 of the North Carolina Constitution. The Carter Court treated the blood draw as a protected “search” and found no exigency justifying it. Carter’s blood type had been determined at trial through analysis of the blood sample obtained on the authority of a nontestimonial identification order signed by a judge. The Carter Court found that the first judge used the wrong procedure and that Carter should get a new trial. At that time the rape victim was 80 to 81 years old. The new trial could have taken place when she was 82 years old, reliving once again what she experienced four years earlier.

What did Chief Justice Burley Mitchell, John Webb, and Louis Meyer (all Democrats), say about it:

MITCHELL, Justice, dissenting.

By refusing to permit the introduction of evidence seized by officers acting in the honest belief that a court order authorizing its seizure was lawful, this Court gives much greater protection to criminal defendants than they have been given by the Supreme Court of the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court has specifically stated in a similar situation, “[W]e refuse to rule that an officer is required to disbelieve a judge who has just advised him, by word and by action, that the warrant he possesses authorizes him to conduct the search he has requested.” We should take the same position as to the court ordered search in this case.

To do otherwise serves no valid purpose, substantially interferes with enforcement of the criminal law and diminishes the integrity of the judicial branch of government.

One need only read any daily newspaper on a regular basis to know that civil judgments against law enforcement officers for violations of constitutional rights are no longer unusual.

Indeed, it is now quite possible for evidence unlawfully seized to be excluded in a criminal case against an accused, while the accused receives additional or double relief in the form of a civil judgment for the same violation of rights.

The high-minded quotations relied upon by the majority warn against permitting courts to be used to further the designs of law enforcement officers who intentionally break the law to gather evidence against criminals. All courts have taken those warnings to heart, and evidence seized by intentionally unlawful methods has been excluded under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for decades. Further, evidence seized by such intentionally unlawful means is not rendered admissible by the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The majority simply has chased a constitutional rabbit which was caught and skinned long ago.

In the present case, officers relying in good faith upon a written judicial order took a sample of the defendant’s blood for analysis and use as evidence. It should be obvious to anyone that excluding this evidence will not deter other officers from making similar mistakes in good faith as to the legal validity of court orders upon which they rely. When following judicial orders in the future, the officers still will not know they are doing anything wrong. Therefore, unlike punishment of intentionally unlawful conduct by officers, which the exclusionary rule arguably deters, punishment of an officer’s good faith reliance on a judicial order cannot deter future similar conduct.

As I believe the majority has today dramatically tilted the scales of justice in favor of criminal defendants for no good or beneficial reason whatsoever, I respectfully dissent.

LOUIS MEYER and JOHN WEBB, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.

Finally, State v. Carter was overruled in 2026:

Opinion by Chief Justice Paul Newby (for himself and four Associate Justices).

For all these reasons, Carter is expressly overruled. Without Carter, our precedent only implies that an exclusionary rule arises from Article I, Section 20, though it has never been formally decided.

We are left to decide whether any exclusionary rule arising under Article I, Section 20 contains a good faith exception. The State asks us to adopt a good faith exception in line with the federal good faith exception. While “we interpret the North Carolina Constitution independently of the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Federal Constitution,” we are persuaded by the reasoning articulated by the Supreme Court for adopting a federal good faith exception in Leon. After all, when “[c]onsidering the precise wording of Article I, Section 20, we find no support … that the ‘text’ itself calls for ‘broader’ protection than that of the Fourth Amendment.” Thus, we adopt the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Leon, to hold that there is a good faith exception to any exclusionary rule arising from Article I, Section 20 of our state constitution equivalent to the federal good faith exception to the exclusionary rule arising out of the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Earls dissented in State v. Rogers: in pertinent part. In full her dissent and that of Chief Justice Burley Mitchell are found at https://paulstam.info/sarah-stevens-

Justice ANITA EARLS dissenting.

The exclusionary rule embodies “a more majestic conception” of constitutional protections—one that “restrains the sovereign itself” and ensures that constitutional “prohibitions are observed in fact.” The principles State v. Carter embraced—judicial integrity, a constitutional right to a remedy, and a deterrence model focused on shaping institutional behavior—are no less vital now than they were in 1988 and in the decades since. This Court should stand by them. I would reaffirm Carter and its progeny and hold that Article I, Section 20 requires exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence with no good faith exception. I respectfully dissent.

Carter and North Carolina’s Exclusionary Rule

In basic terms, the state constitutional exclusionary rule prevents the state from using evidence it obtained unlawfully against those accused of a crime in a court of law. Nearly forty years ago, this Court in State v. Carter, rooted the state exclusionary rule in three complementary principles: deterring police misconduct, safeguarding judicial integrity, and ensuring that every right indeed has a remedy. A court, we said, cannot hand down the law while profiting from its breach. On that view, we declined to graft a good-faith exception onto the exclusionary rule.

These fundamental principles still emanate from Article I, Section 20 and are grounds to maintain Carter’s vitality.

Start with the hallmark constitutional value of judicial integrity. Courts are not merely passive arbiters—they are co-equal branches of government bound by the same constitutional constraints that limit the executive and legislative branches. Justice Brandeis captured this principle powerfully:

Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent, teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.

Carter embraced this understanding: “The preservation of the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by our state constitution demands that the courts of this state not condone violations thereof by admitting the fruits of illegal searches into evidence.” We recognized that courts cannot maintain their legitimacy while profiting from constitutional violations. As Justice Day wrote in Weeks v. United States:

The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures … should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights. 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914).

Judicial integrity is not some abstract aspiration—it is fundamental to the separation of powers and the rule of law embedded in our constitutional structure. Article IV, Section 1 of our state’s constitution vests “[t]he judicial power of the State” in the courts. When courts admit evidence obtained through constitutional violations, they exercise judicial power in furtherance of executive branch lawlessness. This makes the judiciary complicit in constitutional violations, undermining the very separation of powers the constitution establishes.

Moreover, extensive evidence supports that judicial integrity matters to constitutional legitimacy. The North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct’s first canon requires judges to “uphold the integrity … of the judiciary.” Recent cases from this Court emphasize this foundational principle.

Compellingly too, empirical evidence shows that the exclusionary rule serves judicial integrity while the good faith exception undermines it. One study measured public perceptions of judicial integrity and found that participants in the United States had 62.47% confidence in courts when the exclusionary rule applied compared to only 46.49% confidence when it did not apply. The study found that the good faith exception reduced public confidence by 7.97%. Thus it found empirical evidence of “a resounding endorsement of the exclusionary rule on the basis that it promotes judicial integrity. The exclusionary rule is effective in promoting judicial integrity, and it should be applied more broadly, not more narrowly.” Thus this underpinning of Carter’s reasoning continues to hold purchase—and a good faith exception only undermines these foundational values.

Carter catalogued the practical obstacles to civil remedies: “[T]he disinclination of juries to doubt the testimony of police witnesses about conduct undertaken to protect the public, the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the judgment-proof character of the working police officer, and the difficulty that the aggrieved plaintiff may encounter in finding and paying counsel to represent him in a damage action.”

This creates perverse incentives: Why meticulously document probable cause when thin affidavits + magistrate approval + good faith exception = admissible evidence? Why invest in thorough investigation when shortcuts produce the same result? Why train officers in constitutional nuances when “good faith” is enough?

The exception Carter declined, yet the majority now embraces, does not just fail to deter—it actively encourages constitutional shortcuts. This is not speculation—it is predictable human behavior responding to changed costs and benefits.

So notwithstanding the majority’s rewriting of our opinion in Carter, that case did explain why Section 20 of North Carolina’s Constitution demands exclusion of evidence gathered by violating its terms, and why those principles counsel against a good faith exception. And it did not stand alone: The majority now claims that Colson, Reams, Small, and Arrington only “implied” a state constitutional exclusionary rule without ever holding one exists. But this fundamentally mischaracterizes that precedent. In State v. Colson (1968), this Court held that “evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible,” citing both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 15 (now Section 20) of the North Carolina Constitution. The Court explained that after Mapp, “the States are no longer free to adopt or reject at will the exclusionary rule as a means of enforcing the Fourth Amendment in state courts.” Significantly, the Court also noted that “the federal exclusionary rule enunciated in Weeks became statutory law in North Carolina long before Mapp by enactment”—referring to North Carolina’s 1937 statutory exclusion, adopted 24 years before federal mandate.

Now the majority takes this opportunity to expressly overrule Carter and those cases that followed it. The majority’s willingness to discard thirty-seven years of settled precedent undermines legal stability and predictability. Carter has been the foundation for countless judicial decisions, prosecutorial choices, and police training programs. Overruling it creates uncertainty about the scope of constitutional protections and signals that constitutional rights are subject to the shifting political winds of judicial appointments.

The majority offers weak justification for this dramatic departure from precedent. Carter was not clearly erroneous—it reflected a careful analysis of constitutional text, history, and policy considerations. The decision has proven workable in practice and has created the systemic benefits it predicted: better police training, more carefully scrutinized warrants, and improved constitutional compliance. The majority now does little more than “change the time-honored meaning of various portions of our constitution by interpreting the text with the singular aim of reaching a desired outcome.”

Conclusion

The majority abandons decades of precedent that have served this state well. Its decision to expressly overrule Carter is deeply misguided and a betrayal of Carter’s fundamental principles: judicial integrity, deterrence from police misconduct, and ensuring that every right has a remedy. By adopting a good faith exception, it hollows out the exclusionary rule that Carter so steadily protected. That is a decision about the constitutional rule—achieved through indirection rather than honest analysis. As James Madison warned in Federalist 62, when constitutional protections yield to governmental convenience, we create “a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.” The Federalist No. 62, at 379 (James Madison). The majority’s decision thus comes at the expense of constitutional liberty and confidence in our rule of law. I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision and reaffirm that State v. Carter remains the law of North Carolina. I respectfully dissent.

Justice ALLISON RIGGS joins in this dissenting opinion.

THE AUTHOR’S TAKE ON THIS

Justice Anita Earls thinks that the correct remedy in State v. Carter would have been to have a new trial so that the police could get a warrant signed by a judge, instead of the non-testimonial order signed by another judge, in order to prove once again the blood type of Carter, the rapist of a 78-year-old woman. Rational observers realize that Carter’s blood type would remain the same. Even a complete blood transfusion would not change that.

For the victim the decision in Carter means reliving the crime against her yet again. By the time the new trial was ordered, the victim would have been 80 or 81 years old. Who knows how old she was at the new trial. Probably 82. Why would a wise person think this is a good idea? Why would a voter choose such irrational justice?

Sincerely,

Paul Stam

“Sarah Stevens vs Anita Earls” Debate

June 24th, 2026 by Skip

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule

Friends,

The General Assembly respectfully requests that the North Carolina Supreme Court reconsider, and overrule, its holding in State v. Carter that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule which exists under federal law does not apply under North Carolina State law.

Salient facts in State v. Carter:

Robert Lee Carter was convicted of first-degree rape and first-degree kidnapping. Carter entered the home of a 78-year-old victim, forcing her outside through her backyard and a plowed field, raping her, severely beating her, and leaving her unconscious. He was convicted November 3, 1986. The key issue was whether taking Carter’s blood without a search warrant violated Article I, § 20 of the North Carolina Constitution. The Carter Court treated the blood draw as a protected “search” and found no exigency justifying it. Carter’s blood type had been determined at trial through analysis of the blood sample obtained on the authority of a nontestimonial identification order signed by a judge. The Carter Court found that a judge used the wrong procedure and that Carter should get a new trial. At that time the rape victim was 80 to 81 years old.

Dissents in Carter by Chief Justice Burley Mitchell, John Webb, and Louis Meyer (all Democrats):

MITCHELL, Justice, dissenting.

In its failing effort to strike a proper balance between the guarantee against unreasonable searches and the public safety, the majority has chosen to place such a heavy thumb on the scales of justice that they will always weigh in favor of the criminal defendant. The inflexible exclusionary rule the majority has selected for North Carolina will not advance the right to be free from unlawful searches, but it will prevent trial courts from reaching the truth and convicting the guilty in a substantial number of cases. The majority should recognize a good faith exception to our exclusionary rule similar to that applied by the Supreme Court under the Constitution of the United States. To do otherwise serves no valid purpose, substantially interferes with enforcement of the criminal law and diminishes the integrity of the judicial branch of government. Therefore, I dissent.

I recognize that our State Constitution, like the Constitution of the United States, requires the exclusion of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. I even agree with the majority that in the past the exclusionary rule may have been the only practical remedial device for preventing unreasonable searches and seizures. Even the majority seems to recognize, however, that conditions causing the Supreme Court of the United States to first adopt the exclusionary rule have largely ceased to exist.

One need only read any daily newspaper on a regular basis to know that civil judgments against law enforcement officers for violations of constitutional rights are no longer unusual. Indeed, it is now quite possible for evidence unlawfully seized to be excluded in a criminal case against an accused, while the accused receives additional or double relief in the form of a civil judgment for the same violation of rights. The decision of the majority here greatly increases the likelihood of cases in which criminals will be set free while, at the same time, public officials who have made honest mistakes in good faith are required to pay them damages. It is obvious beyond any need for further discussion that such cases will not further the majority’s goal of promoting the integrity of the judiciary, but will result, instead, in the judiciary being subjected to well-deserved ridicule by the general public.

The majority has devoted several pages of its opinion to noble and stirring quotations of legal luminaries of the past, such as former Justices Holmes and Brandeis and our own Sam J. Ervin, Jr., former United States Senator and former Justice of this Court. Although I agree with almost everything contained in those quotations from decades past, it appears that their scope and grandeur have blinded the majority to the obvious fact that they have almost no relevance to the present case.

By definition, the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule applies only in situations in which law enforcement officers have acted under the objectively reasonable belief that their actions were lawful and correct. Although the majority implies that by choosing a rule which excludes such evidence seized in good faith it somehow protects our privacy from invasion—by police, not by criminals—the majority completely fails to tell us how exclusion of evidence seized by officers in good faith reliance upon a court order will further this noble purpose. This failure of the majority is quite understandable, since exclusion of evidence in such cases will serve no valid purpose and will greatly harm the innocent public.

Only in recent years have researchers begun to study the effects of the exclusionary rule. At least one study indicates that the rule results in either a failure to prosecute or a failure to convict as much as 2.35% of all those arrested for felonies. The same study suggests that the exclusionary rule is an even greater impediment to prosecutions for particular crimes such as drug crimes which are unusually dependent on physical evidence. Thus, it has been estimated that the exclusionary rule results in the failure to prosecute or the failure to convict in as much as 7.1% of felony drug charges.

Even the terribly undesirable result of preventing criminal prosecutions by denying “the jury access to clearly probative and reliable evidence” would be an acceptable price to pay in cases such as this, if it would have any substantial deterrent effect on violations of constitutional liberties. Rejection of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, however, “can have no substantial deterrent effect in the sorts of situations under consideration in this case … [and] cannot pay its way in those situations.” The majority’s calculated choice to reject the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule under our state constitution simply will not make our people more secure in their right to be free from unreasonable searches.

Certainly, a refusal to recognize a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule will have no significant “deterrent” effect on judges and magistrates. As the Supreme Court of the United States has correctly pointed out:

To the extent that proponents of exclusion rely on its behavioral effects on judges and magistrates …, their reliance is misplaced. First, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates. Second, there exists no evidence suggesting that judges and magistrates are inclined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amendment or that lawlessness among these actors requires application of the extreme sanction of exclusion.

Third, and most important, we discern no basis … for believing that exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to a warrant will have a significant deterrent effect on the issuing judge or magistrate…. And, to the extent that the rule is thought to operate as a “systemic” deterrent on a wider audience, it clearly can have no such effect on individuals empowered to issue search warrants. Judges and magistrates are not adjuncts to the law enforcement team; as neutral judicial officers, they have no stake in the outcome of particular criminal prosecutions. The threat of exclusion thus cannot be expected significantly to deter them. Imposition of the exclusionary sanction is not necessarily meaningful to inform judicial officers of their errors, and we cannot conclude that admitting evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant while at the same time declaring that the warrant was somehow defective will in any way reduce judicial officers’ professional incentives to comply with the Fourth Amendment, encourage them to repeat their mistakes, or lead to the granting of all colorable warrant requests.

The same common sense reasoning is applicable to cases such as this, in which the search has been conducted pursuant to a nontestimonial identification order. Further, the reasoning of the Supreme Court is not made any less compelling by virtue of the fact that this issue arises under our State Constitution rather than the Constitution of the United States. The exclusionary rule is identical under both constitutions, and the good faith exception to that rule also should be applied equally under both constitutions.

The Supreme Court of the United States has always restricted application of the exclusionary rule “to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” The Supreme Court also:

has acknowledged that the suppression of probative but tainted evidence exacts a costly toll upon the ability of courts to ascertain the truth in a criminal case…. [Supreme Court] cases have consistently recognized that unbending application of the exclusionary sanction to enforce ideals of governmental rectitude would impede unacceptably the truth-finding functions of judge and jury…. After all, it is the defendant, and not the constable, who stands trial.

This Court should adopt the same common-sense reasoning expressed in such statements by the Supreme Court of the United States and apply it here. Regrettably, however, the majority chooses to be more dogmatic and doctrinaire than the Supreme Court of the United States in protecting criminal defendants by excluding evidence uncovered through honest mistakes of officers acting in good faith reliance upon court orders. I recognize that it is within the power of the majority to give criminal defendants greater protections under our State Constitution than those given them by the Constitution of the United States or the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States; I simply think the majority is wrong to do so in the context of this case.

In the context of cases such as this, the majority’s doctrinaire application of our exclusionary rule truly becomes a “mere technicality” applied with a vengeance to block enforcement of the criminal laws for no good reason. Application of the exclusionary rule here will not deter any future misconduct by anyone or lessen the likelihood of future infringements upon anyone’s constitutional rights. The only effect of the majority’s rejection of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in cases such as this is to punish the public by impeding the truth-finding function of its courts. This drastic choice by the majority does not lead to any corresponding societal or constitutional gain for anyone other than criminal defendants lucky enough to have officers make honest errors in their cases. This diminishes the integrity of the judicial branch of government.

As I believe the majority has today dramatically tilted the scales of justice in favor of criminal defendants for no good or beneficial reason whatsoever, I respectfully dissent.

LOUIS MEYER and JOHN WEBB, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.

Link for signed law:

https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/PDF/2011-2012/SL2011-6.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

State v. Rogers overruling State v. Carter in 2026:

Opinion by Chief Justice Paul Newby (for himself and four Associate Justices).

Justice Earls dissent in State v. Rogers: is included in full so that no one can accuse this writer of cherry picking her opinion. Legal citations are omitted as int the previous opinions.

Justice ANITA EARLS dissenting.

Carter and North Carolina’s Exclusionary Rule

Carter also correctly linked the exclusionary rule to Article I, Section 18’s guarantee that “every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law.” This open courts provision traces to the Magna Carta—to King John’s pledge to his barons that, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

The right to a remedy is central to that design. As Sir Edmund Coke explained in the seventeenth century, open courts mean little if they do not redress wrongs. The word “injury” in Section 18, drawn from the common-law concept of injuria, includes the violation of legal rights—constitutional rights among them.

The violation of Section 20 through an unlawful search constitutes a legal injury that demands redress. As Carter recognized, alternative remedies like civil suits against officers are ineffective in practice: “In the period of history between Weeks and Mapp, when the states were free to experiment with effective alternative remedial devices, none were developed. The Mapp Court was forced to conclude that ‘other remedies have proved worthless and futile.’ ”

Finally, Carter understood that deterrence operates institutionally, not merely individually. As the Court explained: “One of the great purposes of the exclusionary rule is to impose the template of the constitution on police training and practices.” The rule “is responsible for the systematic, in-depth training of police forces in the law of search and seizure.”

This Court concluded that “the exclusionary rule has been a potent force for achieving its intended deterrent purpose. Warrants today are more carefully prepared and scrutinized before issuance.” This systemic effect serves the constitutional purpose of constraining governmental power through institutional incentives for compliance.

A good faith exception undermines this systemic deterrence. If officers know that seeking judicial authorization—even with weak probable cause—insulates them from exclusion, the incentive shifts. Rather than carefully building probable cause to ensure constitutional compliance, officers can present marginal cases to magistrates, confident that their “good faith reliance” protects them from constitutional accountability.

In State v. Reams (1970), this Court reiterated that “[e]vidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible,” citing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Article I, Section 15, N.C.G.S. § 15-27, and Mapp. We further reiterated that position in State v. Small (1977). This is not doctrinal “implication by string citation”—this is application of established doctrine. From 1968 to 1984, this Court consistently cited both federal and state constitutions as requiring exclusion, applied exclusionary principles without questioning their existence, and analyzed only whether violations occurred and evidence needed to be suppressed. This is the doctrinal landscape Carter inherited in 1988: decades of cases treating state constitutional exclusion as established, with the new question being whether North Carolina would follow the federal good faith exception that United States v. Leon (1984), had just created four years earlier. Carter answered: No.

The Majority’s “Assum[ing] Without Deciding” a Constitutional Exclusionary Rule Is Incoherent and Procedurally Unprecedented

As this detour through the fundamental principles underlying Carter and the exclusionary rule shows, it is analytically essential to understand the purpose and scope of a constitutional rule in order to know what exceptions might logically apply to that rule. The majority purports to “assume without deciding that an exclusionary rule arises from Article I, Section 20,” but then announces that any such rule is subject to “good faith exception” akin to that under federal law. This approach is logically impossible. One cannot rationally craft exceptions to a rule whose existence, scope, and purposes remain undefined. The exception is wholly derivative of the primary rule—it makes no sense to “assume” the rule while definitively declaring its limitations.

The federal good faith exception exists because the Supreme Court held the federal exclusionary rule is merely “a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect.” When an officer acts in good faith, “there is no police illegality and thus nothing to deter.” But this reasoning only works if deterrence is the rule’s sole purpose. If the exclusionary rule also serves judicial integrity—if courts have an independent constitutional obligation not to profit from constitutional violations—then the officer’s good faith is irrelevant. The court still becomes complicit by admitting the evidence. If the rule embodies a constitutional right to remedy under Article I, Section 18—if every violation must have consequences—then the officer’s subjective mental state cannot eliminate that constitutional injury. Thus Carter’s framework for our state’s exclusionary rule explains why a good faith exception is unsupported in our constitutional scheme.

Thus the majority has it backwards. One must first understand what the rule is and why it exists before determining when exceptions are appropriate. The majority’s approach is like a doctor prescribing medication before diagnosing the disease, or an architect adding windows to a building without first confirming it has walls.

The majority’s approach is also unprecedented in American jurisprudence. When the Supreme Court created the federal good faith exception in Leon, it first definitively confirmed that the exclusionary rule was a prudential, judicially created remedy, not constitutionally mandated. (“We have frequently questioned whether the exclusionary rule can have any deterrent effect when the offending officers acted in the objectively reasonable belief that their conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment.”). Only after establishing this foundation for why the rule exists in the first place did the Court consider any exceptions based on deterrence rationales.

The majority’s “assume without deciding but create exceptions anyway” approach is sui generis—and for good reason. It produces maximal judicial discretion with minimum accountability. Future cases can either rely on today’s “assumption” or reject it, depending on which outcome proves more convenient. Meanwhile, the majority has already limited whatever rule might exist through exceptions it adopted without ever defining the rule’s contours.

The majority correctly recognizes that “the General Assembly may not dictate this Court’s interpretation of the state constitution.” (citing Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. (Mart.) 5, 6–7 (1787)). But just as the legislature cannot create exceptions to constitutional rules, neither can this Court create exceptions to a constitutional rule it refuses to even acknowledge exists.

Bayard established that “no act th[e General Assembly] could pass[ ] could by any means repeal or alter the constitution.” 1 N.C. at 6–7. The same logic applies to judicial erosion. If this Court can “assume” constitutional rules exist while immediately limiting them through exceptions—all while reserving the right to later declare the rules never existed—we have created a mechanism for constitutional amendment by judicial fiat.

This violates the fundamental principle that courts lack power to revise the constitution. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 78, the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” The Federalist No. 78, at 464 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clint Rossiter ed., 1961). While the executive “holds the sword of the community” and the legislature “commands the purse,” the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse” and “can take no active resolution whatever.” Hamilton emphasized that courts possess “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.”

The majority’s approach exceeds this limited judicial power. By “assuming without deciding” that a constitutional right exists while immediately crafting exceptions to it—thereby weakening the right without definitively acknowledging its existence—the majority exercises will rather than judgment. It reshapes constitutional protections to achieve a preferred policy outcome (admitting unconstitutionally obtained evidence) while avoiding accountability for honestly declaring what the constitution requires.

True judicial judgment would require the Court to:

1. Examine Article I, Section 20’s text, history, and purposes;

2. Decide the scope of North Carolina’s exclusionary rule;

3. Determine whether that rule’s constitutional foundations permit exceptions; and

4. Apply that holding to the facts before us.

Instead, the majority substitutes its will for judgment by:

1. Refusing to examine whether the rule exists;

2. “Assuming” it does (or might), thereby failing to establish the rule’s purpose or foundations;

3. Immediately adopting exceptions; and

4. Reserving the right to later declare the rule never existed.

This is precisely the type of judicial overreach Hamilton warned against—courts using indirection and procedural gymnastics to achieve outcomes they lack authority to mandate directly. If this Court believes Article I, Section 20 contains no exclusionary rule, it should say so honestly. If it believes such a rule exists but permits exceptions, it should conduct proper constitutional analysis before crafting those exceptions. What it cannot do—consistent with its limited role as a court of judgment rather than will—is reshape constitutional protections through the backdoor of “assuming without deciding.”

The majority’s approach is particularly pernicious because it operates through indirection. Rather than honestly confronting whether Article I, Section 20 contains an exclusionary rule, the majority achieves the practical elimination of constitutional protection while claiming to exercise restraint. This is not judgment—it is will. It is not interpretation—it is amendment. And it is not restraint—it is the exercise of power courts do not possess.

As Hamilton warned, when courts exceed their proper role and substitute will for judgment, they threaten “the political rights of the Constitution” they are sworn to uphold. The Federalist No. 78, at 464 (Alexander Hamilton). This is a separation of powers violation dressed up as minimalism.

Moreover, the majority purports not to decide whether an exclusionary rule exists. But by adopting a good faith exception, the majority is deciding that Article I, Section 20’s protections for individuals are weaker and more limited than under Carter. That is a decision about the scope and content of the constitutional rule.

In any event, the majority cannot disclaim responsibility for the consequences of its holding by hiding behind what it ostensibly did not decide. Whether achieved directly or indirectly, the practical result is identical: evidence obtained through constitutional violations will be admissible under the Court’s decision today. The majority has made a constitutional decision while pretending it has not.

Conclusion

Justice ALLISON RIGGS joins in this dissenting opinion.

The author’s take on this

For the victim the decision in Carter means reliving the crime against her yet again. By the time the new trial was ordered, the victim would have been 80 or 81 years old. How knows how old she was at the new trial? Why would a wise person think this is a good idea?

Sincerely,

Paul Stam

Rebuttal to Public Ed Works

June 18th, 2026 by Skip

Public Ed Works published “Bringing Back Exclusion: NC’s School Voucher Program.” This article is full of factual errors and economic and logical fallacies. It warrants rebuttal. It is written by J. Drew Tonissen, author of “The Resegregation Racket.”

Tonissen claims that in 2013 Opportunity Scholarships were sold to the public under the guise of helping “low income” and “disabled” students, starting out with $10 million and a low-income cap as “bait” for a much-expanded program for white wealthy parents. The 2013 legislation was constrained by fiscal limits. Proponents at the time wanted a program that would serve low- and middle-income families who needed the scholarships to afford tuition. Appropriators were not sure that the program would actually save the state and county money, so they chose to start small with a pilot program.

Disabled students are covered by a separate program, ESA+, that began two years earlier in 2011 with much larger grants. That program never had an income cap. It was never challenged in court nor legislatively. It is hugely popular.

Tonissen claims that there are negative educational outcomes for scholarship students, that there are no measures of accountability and no information is available to the public about whether such students have made academic progress or have fallen behind. Not true. A study conducted by professors at NC State University and the Friday Institute found that Opportunity Scholars scored higher on standardized tests in reading, math and language compared to their public school peers. The researchers wrote that Opportunity Scholars showed a “positive, large and statistically significant” effect in math, reading and language. The authors cautioned that test participants comprised only a small percentage of the students then receiving the scholarships.

In a 2016 Friedman Foundation Report by Greg Forster, 31 out of 33 peer-reviewed studies found that a school choice program improves the outcome for public-school students in the neighboring area. One report found no effect and one found a negative effect.

Tonissen complains that discrimination on the basis of race is the same as the purpose of, many schools which started in the late ’50s and early ’60s, and that purpose is still present. Does he not realize that the statute creating Opportunity Scholarships forbids “discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin?” Does he not realize that 21% of Opportunity Scholars are African American or Hispanic?

In 2023 and 2024, I represented two dozen private Christian schools which were required to give depositions or produce documents about their policies on discrimination. My review of their records showed all but one was thoroughly integrated by race. One exception was a small school oriented only to disadvantaged students. It was all African American in practice but wants to integrate.

Tonissen claims that the Opportunity Scholarship is mostly about helping wealthy white families who don’t need it. Does he not realize that two-thirds of the scholarship money goes to families in Tier One (poor) and Tier Two (getting by)? The maximum income for a family of four is $61,050 and $122,160, respectively. Does he not realize that Tier Four (wealthy) families only receive 11% of the funding although they are 18% of the scholarships? Tier Three families with a household income limit of $274,725 for a family of four (doing fine but not wealthy) receive 23% of the scholarship money.

Tonissen claims that “average” yearly tuition for private schools in North Carolina is $13,177. Where did he get that number? It is wildly too high. Very expensive private schools generally do not accept Opportunity Scholarships. A group of top academic quality schools, Thales Academies in expensive Wake County charge tuition and fees of around $7,000. Catholic schools generally charge $9,640. Other Christian schools average $6,708 to $7,870 (depending on grade level). Some private Christian schools charge $10,000 and accept Opportunity Scholarships. Generally they also provide financial aid of their own on top of the Opportunity Scholarships.

Tonissen claims that schools “lose funding for every student who leaves with a voucher leaving our traditional schools hollowed out.” Does he not realize that public schools also lose the expense of educating that child? When savings to counties for capital and for local supplements are considered, with savings to the state, public schools lose no funding.

Tonissen claims that Opportunity Scholarship schools lack accountability. Many point out that private schools need not be accredited. True. But public schools also are not required to be accredited. Most Opportunity Scholars are in elementary school. Accreditation for public elementary schools is rare. Accreditation is often meaningless. Forty-three traditional public high schools were committing “academic genocide,” declared Judge Manning in Leandro. These 43 schools were also “accredited.” Accreditation can be a worthy goal, depending on the criteria used. It can also be a useless expense if it measures inputs rather than outputs.

Private schools do not administer the state “end-of-grade” tests. But private schools are required to administer nationally normed tests on grammar, reading and math (annually for Opportunity Scholars). Nationally normed tests paint a truer picture than the state “end-of-grade” test. I urge our public schools to use nationally normed tests. We can then compare performance on these tests with the academic performance of Opportunity Scholars.

Public Ed Works should face up to reality and not employ misinformed ideologues as writers.

What Could Be Wrong with a Constitutional Amendment Limiting Income Tax Rate to 3.5%

May 19th, 2026 by Skip

The NC GOP platform (Article II) states, “The government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions. We support a thorough review of expenditures each year, and we support a tax payer’s bill of rights.” “TABOR” is the usual acronym for a “Taxpayer Bill of Rights.” A goal I share with proponents of SB1080 is a mechanism that will restrain state government from overspending.

Does SB1080 actually effectuate these principles? Does it expand taxpayer rights or constrict them? Why is it a constitutional amendment?

Population changes increase both tax revenue and the need for service. A typical TABOR adjusts for increases based on population and inflation. It does not adjust for changes in the level of service. e.g., decreasing the age at which young people are treated as adults, more scholarships for the children of disabled veterans, or adding to the duties of the state auditors.

This proposal seeks to remedy the spending problem by capping the state income tax rate at 3.5%.

Currently,Article V of the North Carolina Constitution reads:

“Sec. 2. State and local taxation. . .

(6) Income tax. The rate of tax on incomes shall not in any case exceed seven percent, and there shall be allowed personal exemptions and deductions so that only net incomes are taxed.”

Unlike the 2018 Amendment which reduced the cap from 10% to 7%, this one would lock in a future cap to a rate with which we have no experience. Since the personal income tax provides one half of the revenue for the general fund of the state, this is a risky bet. The proposal assumes that the decrease in the rate would bring in more revenue just as the increase in revenue occurred after the rate was decreased from 7.75% to 4.5%. This uses both economic and logical fallacies – the point of diminishing returns and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

To change that rate would take another constitutional amendment requiring 3/5 of the whole House, 72 votes and, in the Senate, 30 votes, plus a referendum.

Why would we want to put the future of the state in the hands of Democrats whose vote to make up the 72 votes may cost the state dearly? Why do I say that Democratic votes would be necessary when Republicans have a supermajority in the Senate and almost one in the House? Is it really a sure thing that the GOP will have supermajority in the future? NO.

For the last dozen years, the House has not agreed to this type of amendment. It has repeatedly been sent over by the Senate. The opportunity for legislative extortion will be immense. Unlike a veto override, a constitutional amendment requires 72 positive votes, not 3/5 of those voting. Any absences, vacancies or defections on the GOP side will increase the need for Democratic votes.

Why would Representatives and voters of 2026 think that they had superior knowledge of government policy to those Representatives and voters of 2031 or beyond? SB1080 makes no more sense than a liberal version that REQUIRED a minimum level of income taxation.

Particular Problems with SB1080

SB1080 restricts increases only on income tax rates – not increases in overall state taxes – so it almost requires increases of other taxes. It is no surprise that the Senate plan is to reduce income taxes from 4% to 2.5% while adding to services subject to sales tax and adding sin taxes (alcohol, gambling, tobacco, marijuana) to fill the gap! Would the Senate be willing to tax prostitution in the future? Why not? Some Senators want to eliminate the personal income tax altogether.

There is an inherent problem with squeezing income tax receipts into taxes on services.

A tax on services is an income tax on gross income. Suppose the “sales tax” was extended to the services of a CPA. What is a sales tax on a pure service but an income tax on gross income? A CPA could successfully refuse to pay the 6.75% “sales tax” claiming that it exceeded the 3.5% constitutional limit on taxation of income. The budget for that year would be in chaos.

A dozen years ago I asked Arthur Laffer if a sales tax on services was really much better than a flat income tax at a relatively low rate. He said “no,” as long as we keep it low and flat. We have.

This Amendment only restricts the rate of tax. A future Assembly that clearly needed more revenue could solve the problem by decreasing personal exemptions or by eliminating popular deductions. Would that be good policy? NO.

SB1080 would encourage more borrowing. Receipts from a bond would not count against the income tax limitation and the resulting spending could be counted over decades rather than the years the money is spent.

SB1080 would likely have a negative effect on our AAA bond rating. Bond ratings themselves are just that – opinions. And bond ratings (opinions) matter – a lot. If we lose our AAA rating the cost of borrowing increases. Bond rating agencies do not like tax limitations that apply to the future.

The massive problem of government overspending is primarily at the federal level- not the state level. At the federal level, we are more than $39 trillion in debt. Some day a responsible Congress will meet a responsible President and come to a “Grand Bargain” on spending. Suppose that “Bargain” included a $1 trillion dollar reduction in federal spending. $900 billion would not be spent at all. The other 10% ($100 billion) would be devolved to the states to cover functions that truly belong to the states but have been hijacked by the feds. Education and some transportation funding come to mind. Conservatives would be in a state of delirious joy!! During the second Trump Administration we have already seen large reductions in monies devolved to state and local government, albeit with a large increase in deficits that can not be blamed on the Pandemic.

That “Grand Bargain” would require a $3 billion increase in North Carolina state revenues. Taxpayers would be delighted because of the corresponding huge reduction in the federal tax and debt burden. But it would be virtually impossible for NC to take up the offer if SB1080 were part of our Constitution. So many GOP members have taken Grover Norquist’s “no tax increase” pledge that a future amendment would have to rely on Democrats to vote “Aye.” Democrats could impose impermissible demands as ransom for the votes necessary to revise the Constitution.

I did not oppose the 2018 Constitutional Amendment setting the cap at 7%. By then we had already shown that tax rates below that figure were prudent and actually made North Carolina much more competitive. This proposal needs a lot of work. I could suggest several changes that could make this proposal workable.

Cordially,

Paul “Skip” Stam

Let’s think about property tax

April 30th, 2026 by Skip

Property taxes are too high. What are the questions to ask?

What is a tax? Taxes, fees and utility rates are not the same thing. Decades ago, Popular Government published an article by professor Charles Liner explaining why stormwater utility “fees” are in reality a tax. They are the most regressive tax in North Carolina. At last count, about 104 local governments charge such “fees.” I litigated that for 10 years with some success against Durham and Greensboro.

Why do local governments love to add fees or rates that operate like taxes? They get more money without having to call this new money “taxes.” Fees are nondeductible to individuals, while taxes are deductible. For individuals, it is a loss both ways.

There are many more examples: The North Carolina Supreme Court has just allowed class certification for those paying water and sewer utility “fees” in Raleigh. The question is whether these are properly imposed fees. Years ago, Durham had School Impact “fees.” We won an $8 million class action. Checks were written by homebuilders, but it was homeowners who paid all of it in mortgage payments.

Apex is currently being sued by a class over its recreation “fees” on developers. Apex now has a yard waste fee that applies every month whether anything was picked up or not. I am glad the town picks up yard waste. Until recently, it was paid for by sales and property taxes. If it were based on the number or weight of the yard waste, it would be a fee. The way it is charged, it is really a tax and a highly regressive one.

The most egregious example is $100 citations for drivers running red lights. The biggest problem is that 80% to 90% of those cited are actually innocent of the crime. The second problem is that this is a “tax” on innocent drivers, some of whom don’t even live in the city. At one point, 15 cities used this funding mechanism. Now only Greensboro does. Charlotte is considering it.

My conclusion is that a limit on the property tax rates will be ineffectual unless it includes fees and rates that are taxes in a true economic sense.

Are there practical problems with levy limits on true property taxes that are tied to population growth and inflation? Yes. 1. A local government cannot factor improvements in levels of service. 2. While local government can count the buildings in town there is no ready way to count population in the middle of the decade when tax rates are reset. 3. Inflation measured by any of the several measures, such as CPI or the GDP deflator, will not be available at the local level. 4. State budgets have purported to be limited by population and inflation for the last 15 years. The growth in spending has gone way beyond that “Tabor” calculation by various budget gimmicks. State appropriators use “reserves,” which are then spent off budget. Cities can do that as well. Think of all the JDIG (a targeted economic incentive) money that simply delays money required to be spent in later years by businesses not in favor by the JDIG Committee.

I am a victim of large property tax increases. This is not because of a fundamental flaw in the property tax but because the Wake County commissioners and Apex council members where I live are all liberal Democrats. A majority of the voters in Wake County want much more spending on higher levels of service and/or waste. This is democracy. My side lost in city and county elections.

What else can be done? The General Assembly could look at three reforms that would help: 1. Some nonprofits that act like business should not get exemption from property or sales tax. Some hospitals pay their executives tens of millions per year in compensation. 2. Expand eligibility for elderly, lower income folks to defer tax until death or sale with interest accrued at the legal rate. There is no reason why their heirs should get the benefit of deferred tax. 3. Agricultural deferred taxes come due in full upon sale for nonagricultural purposes. Local government recaptures three past years of deferred tax plus the legal rate of interest. That could well be a recapture of the deferred amount for 6-8 years instead of three.

There is one myth that should be refuted at every turn. “We don’t like property taxes because only people like us pay them. Tenants don’t.” That is a myth. Property taxes are paid by tenants. In reality, property tax is part of the rent, except for the truly homeless.

What are the implications of the SAVE ACT?

March 14th, 2026 by Skip

Many years ago, a distant relative of mine had a problem she wanted me to fix. She was scheduled to go on a cruise to the Caribbean in a few days. She was told she needed a passport or a birth certificate. She had neither. I had legislative connections.

She told me that she had always lived in North Carolina but had never travelled abroad. She had voted in every election. She and her husband operated a business in Raleigh for many decades and paid all their taxes .

I suggested she drive to her county of birth and get a birth certificate. She told me that courthouse had burned down about 70 years ago. She had never thought to get a delayed birth certificate. She missed that trip.

State legislators and local government leaders who ponder the implications of the SAVE ACT might consider demands on them a few days before each election. Many constituents don’t have a copy of their birth certificate and will need to get it right now. Think of the married constituent whose name on her photo ID doesn’t match whatever birth certificate she has. Many women (and a few men) have four names. Some include last names from prior marriages.

I pulled out my three government issued photo IDs: my passport, driver’s license and my military ID from 1974. None of them are identical to what is on my birth certificate. None are identical to the name on my Board of Election voter card.

If the proof of citizenship requirement of the SAVE ACT is not scrapped tens of thousands of real citizens will not be allowed to vote in 2026. There will be sufficient numbers of real challenges that could actually affect U.S. elections in enough states to throw Congress into the Briar Patch. Maybe that is the purpose!

Paul “Skip” Stam, served 16 years In the N.C. House of Representative. The last ten as first Republican Leader and then Speaker Pro Tem

My Presidents’ Day Memoir

March 9th, 2026 by Skip

I dictated this memoir on Presidents’ Day. It is too early to cover Presidents 44, 45, 46 and 47. I cover the others who were in office during my life on earth. This is what I remember from many years ago. I have not “fact checked” as I usually do. The Reader’s memory and the actual facts may differ.

I was born September 5, 1950. It was the month of the Inchon landing in Korea. Operation Chromite was an amphibious assault on September 15, 1950 that turned the tide of the Korean War. UN forces bypassed North Korean defenses to land at Inchon, recapturing Seoul and forcing a massive North Korean retreat. If it had not been successful there would likely be no South Korea, one of our best allies in the world. I’m thankful for Harry Truman entering the fray again even after the huge sacrifices of World War II.

Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952 with a promise to end the Korean War. That Armistice has lasted from 1953 through today. Since General Eisenhower was the architect of total victory over the Nazis the North Koreans and Chinese knew he meant business. My oldest grandson spent time in 2025 with 30,000 U.S. soldiers defending Seoul and the DMZ. I recall drills at school, not for “active shooters,” but in case of nuclear war. Those who could afford it built bomb shelters.

When I was 3 or 4 I watched my father watch the Army- McCarthy hearings on a small black and white TV. My father despised Senator Joe McCarthy.

When I drive on a new interstate I think of the President who created the Interstate system. When 540 opened in southern Wake County it cost me $1.92 and has saved me 20 minutes every time I used it.

Eisenhower’s VP was Richard Nixon. In 1960 John F. Kennedy prevailed over Nixon. I remember riding around Greensboro, to the embarrassment of my parents, shouting, “ One Mr. K. is enough.” I remember the debate between Nixon and Kennedy. Radio listeners thought Nixon won. TV viewers were sure Kennedy had won. The principal issue between them: who would be tougher on the Chinese Communists?

1960 was a really close election. It came down to one state – Illinois. There was actual evidence of real ballot stuffing by the Daley machine in Chicago. Nixon conceded “for the sake of the country.” Because the weapons of the Cold War were on a hair trigger we couldn’t afford a doubt as to who was in charge. I admired Nixon for that.

President John F. Kennedy made a rookie mistake with the Bay of Pigs fiasco at Guantanamo. Shortly thereafter Kennedy met the real Cuban Missile Crisis. He exhibited mature judgment, defusing an existential threat to the nation. He listened to advisors who were more knowledgeable. He was tragically assassinated in 1963. By today’s standards JFK would be considered a conservative Democrat. He took the rate of taxation way down in order to increase revenues. That doesn’t work on all types and rates of taxation. It did work then.

His successor was Lyndon Johnson. He knew how to get things done in Congress. Some of his proposals were excellent, some not so great. I have a bone to pick with him. While he was President he ramped up the U.S. involvement in Vietnam to about 500,000 troops. 55,000 died. We learned later that Robert McNamara, his Secretary of Defense, told Johnson that the war could not be won. Johnson doubled down. Who knows what the outcome would have been if Johnson had listened to McNamara?

Some say today is the worst time in American politics. They are too young to remember 1968: assassinations, terrorism inside the United States, riots at the Democratic National Convention, hijackings of aircraft, the Baader – Meinhof Gang, the Weather Underground, the Six-Day War, the bloody Tet Offensive. 1968 was a bad year.

In 1968 I enlisted in the Marine Corps believing that the Communists had to be stopped. The “domino theory” was real but the tactics to stop it were not. I was not old enough to vote in 1968. Boot camp and infantry training made world news unavailable to me. Richard Nixon promised that he had a secret plan to win in Vietnam. He didn’t promise it in 24 hours but quickly. I was not assigned to the infantry and never went to Vietnam.

The war and constant protests well into the 70’s were news every day. Before I was discharged (1970) Marines at Camp Lejeune were practicing riot control after the National Guard killed protesters at Kent State. American men moved to Canada either in protest or to avoid the draft. In September I went to Michigan State. I joined protesters against Jane Fonda and the Black Panthers.

By 1972 the Vietnam War was still not ended. George McGovern ran on an “unofficial platform” of “Abortion, Acid, and Amnesty.” I voted for Nixon. He still had not ended the Vietnam War. Today George McGovern would be considered a moderate Democrat.

In 1972 power went to Nixon’s head. He really tried to rig the election through espionage and dirty tricks – Watergate. He would have won anyway. To try to tame inflation he tried price controls and took us off the gold standard.

Nixon fought the Courts trying to save himself from Watergate. The Supreme Court ruled against him. Everyone, even Presidents, has to honor subpoenas. There were two things on the “missing” tapes that finished him. First, he was found to have lied about Watergate. Second, the nation learned that he constantly used foul language in the Oval Office. Which of these two revelations brought him down? I’m not sure, but he resigned. Republicans, in the minority in Congress, were ready to remove him from office.

Nixon’s vice president was Spiro Agnew. He resigned for taking bribes. Nixon’s second vice president was Gerald Ford. Ford was a decent and competent president. He brought the Vietnam War quickly to a losing end. He pardoned Richard Nixon to save the nation from a year of misery. That cooked Ford’s goose in the election of 1976.

I did not vote for Jimmy Carter. I admired him, not only for his work and his Nobel Peace Prize after his presidency, but also for much of his work while in office – the Camp David triumph and his personal and real Christian faith. He had his flaws. He was a micromanager. He showed incompetence after the Iranian revolution. His intentions were good, but he really needed a better team to advise him. He took office shortly after the reverberations of the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. He claimed later in life to have thought that his actions in office were pro-life. They were not.

Ronald Reagan was my favorite president. In 1976 he won the North Carolina primary. That propelled him into the lead in 1980. He was a convictional conservative. He also had the good sense to make his rival, George HW Bush, his Vice President. He was funny, articulate, and persuasive. Almost everyone liked him even if they opposed him.

Reagan was a smart politician and was truly pro-life. He had signed a bill to liberalize abortion while Governor of California. He got his head and heart straightened out. He wrote Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, the only book ever written by a President while in office. His was not a political conversion on the issue but real. He made a lot of progress on that issue during his presidency even while he was faced with divided government.

In the last year of his presidency Reagan didn’t finish so well. A few years after he left office Nancy reported that he had early onset Alzheimer’s. Some believe that in his last year he was affected by this progressive disease. He was almost 78 years old when he left office. Nevertheless, his record was so strong that George H.W. Bush was able to handily defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988.

I had a lot of respect for George H.W. Bush. He was the youngest Navy pilot to be shot down during World War II. Once I discussed 17 issues with him in 30 seconds. I shook his hand, had my picture taken with him, and said, “ President Bush, I agree with all 17 of your vetoes.” President Bush had a 90% approval rating after the first Gulf War. He orchestrated a magnificent victory. It was about 80% when he came to Raleigh in 1990 to endorse Art Pope and me for reelection to the State House. I was planning to use that recording in the fall. By then he had violated an unequivocal campaign promise, “Read my lips: No new taxes!” In those days voters took specific campaign promises seriously. I didn’t use that recording. I lost. Art won.

Bill Clinton. After 12 years of Republican presidents the country was ready for a change. Bill won in 1992 by a plurality, running against a WWII war hero (Bush) and a billionaire former Navy officer (Perot). A plurality of veterans voted for a draft dodging alley cat. Clinton was smart and had the sense to accept Newt Gingrich leadership in balancing the federal budget for two years and agreeing to real welfare reform.

In 2000 the country was tired of Hillary, if not Bill, and elected George W. Bush in a squeaker. The election came down to Florida. Democrats still say that the U.S. Supreme Court handed the election to Bush. Not so. Every single count of the ballots, even by the press later, showed that Bush won by a tiny majority. A narrow victory does not mean that any one cheated.

The Bush Administration ran into the hurricane of 9/11. Bush invoked Article V of the NATO Treaty. Dozens of other nations came to our defense in Afghanistan and shed their blood with ours. The need for new resources for Defense and Homeland Security pushed the recently balanced budgets out the window. In 2024 Bush won a resounding victory. In 2008 he faced the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. No one really knew what to do. No more balanced budgets since.

President Bush faced claims that he lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003. He didn’t lie. He relied on clear intelligence from many other nations. How could the intelligence have been so wrong? Saddam Hussein thought that his best defense was deception – that the threat of phantom weapons would deter the world. He was foolish and caused his own downfall. Bush tried to prevail in Iraq while others demanded a date to withdraw. The guaranteed way to fail in war and in any other contest is to tell your opponent when and how you will quit the field.

Maybe in 5 years I will complete my remembrances of the presidents. In the meantime I solicit your memories from those years. Use paulstam@stamlawfirm.com.

Michael Byrne for the Court of Appeals

February 12th, 2026 by Skip

Friends,

Twice I ran for the Court of Appeals – in 1998 and 2000. Each time it was a squeaker.

The primary on March 3rd is only 19 days away. Early voting has already started.

Michael has 20+ times more relevant experience for a potential Judge of the Court of Appeals than the other candidate. For the last six years he has been a Judge for the Office of Administrative Hearings. His decisions are reviewed by the Court of Appeals where he is 9-0 having his judgements upheld. Before that he had decades of litigation experience appearing before the Court of Appeals with many significant victories.

Primaries are very important as we pick our best candidate for November.

Michael Byrne will be electable in the November election. He has already been endorsed by the North Carolina Police Benevolent Association and the North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police. He also has the endorsement from the National Association of Police Organizations. This may be its first judicial primary endorsement in North Carolina history. Over 240,000 sworn officers and 1,000 police units nationwide are represented. It is highly likely that after the primary Michael will be endorsed by SEANC.

Why these endorsements? Much of Michael’s private practice for decades was defending law enforcement officers and state employees ni court.

I hope you will consider voting for Michael Byrne.

Cordially,

Paul Stam

How the General Assembly Actually Works

January 30th, 2026 by Skip

1. Persistence. Woman’s Right to Know (the Risks of Abortion) took 30 years from initial passage in the State Senate (1981) until it became law in 2011. The State Abortion Fund took 17 years (1978-1995) to effectively end. The “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule took 23 years from when it was conceived in the eye of the author till it became law in 2011.

But legislation supported by the Speaker and the Senate Pro Tem can come together in an instant.

2. Don’t cheat. In 2005 the state lottery passed by one vote in each chamber. The Speaker of the House broke eight different House rules to get it through. The Senate used scurrilous maneuvers to allow two Senators, who were publicly against but privately for, to vote by their absence. There has been a 20-year stench over the lottery that will never subside.

3. The Exceptions. For sixty years abortionists used exceptions such as a serious physical danger to health of the mother, rape and incest as a rationale that all abortions needed to be legal. These 3 exceptions are less than 1% of the total. The public think these are prevalent. In 1967 the American Law Institute proposed reforms using these and other exceptions worded so broadly that effectively would give us abortion on demand. North Carolina was the 2^nd state to effectively legalize abortion. In 1967!!

I served in 1989 – 1990. Attempts to end the State Abortion Fund by bipartisan amendments had come up short. We called the bluff of the abortionists. After a decade of spending $924,000 or more on medically unnecessary abortions for those on welfare, $424,000 was to be spent yearly from the state abortion fund. Abortionists proposed tax paid abortion on demand that would expire for lack of funds halfway through the year. This would result in no tax paid abortions for the second half of the year, including those endangering the life of the mother and those based on rape or incest.

We proposed an amendment that the fund be limited to situations endangering the life of the mother and those based on rape or incest. The money would last all year, but the actual number of tax paid abortions would decrease 99% to about 60/year instead of 6000/year. The left thought that big numbers of abortion were more important to them than the exceptions they had counted on politically for so long. They defeated the amendment. They were politically impaled on the horns of their own dilemma. By 1995 that Fund was effectively ended.

4. “Everybody’s on board.” There is a way to get stakeholder involvement and accomplish a great deal. Before the 2015 session we obtained “stakeholder buy-in” from every organized group affected by the criminal justice system. 50 different individuals were involved. We asked for suggestions to make the criminal justice process more timely without minimizing constitutional rights. Almost all of our proposals became law in HB 127 or related bills.

The term “everybody is on board” often means that the legislator meets with lobbyists and forgets about the public who are not represented – as when a pirate captures a prize ship. The 2009 “Homebuyer’s Protection Act” was just such a law. It wasn’t too many years before the “other bodies” who weren’t “on board” understood that their interests had been compromised. They took their real position back.

5. To score a run in Baseball the player must advance not only to first base but also to second, third and home before his side is out. Reaching first base may be compared to filing a bill when significant work has been done, necessary research is completed, and supporting groups and members are lined up before filing. Some think that once a bill is filed that success has happened. Newsletters will proclaim: “I filed a bill.” That’s just stepping up to the plate.

Getting it past the House and its committees is equally as arduous – second base. The bill must also pass the Senate and obtain the assent of the governor and perhaps a conference committee. A member who passes a bill out of the Assembly and past the Governor but neglects its future course is not successful. Turning a bill into law is only a triple. To score a run it is necessary that the bureaucracy) implement the law. If rulemaking is not required then enforcement of the laws is secured by making sure that police or district attorneys know about and appreciate it. For civil laws, private trade groups and newspapers and netizens must be informed and motivated.

Video poker has been repeatedly criminalized by legislation. It has been upheld by three unanimous and bipartisan decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court. Why is video poker still so prevalent in certain parts of the state? Citizens don’t demand that law enforcement does its job.

6. “Bend your knees.” “Keep your eye on the ball” when playing tennis. The parallel in legislation is to follow the rules, ethics and customs. Passion for a cause does not excuse improper form, improper ethics or creation of ill will.

Don’t burn bridges. Your opponent today may be your ally tomorrow. In addition to the moral advantages of not vilifying your opponents or impugning their motives, it is extremely unwise to have a group of members who will vote against your bill because they don’t like you. Legislative courtesy pays. Legislative payback is deadly.

7. Good staff and family make you look good. Staff can make you look bad. The NASCAR driver is only the captain. Without technicians in the pit to make the car go fast, the driver will not win. I was blessed with excellent family and staff. Even freshmen members of the minority party have access to excellent staff if they know how. Central professional staff will help any member if asked in the right way and at the right time. The right time is early in the process when staff are not deluged with requests by the “big shots.” The right way includes “please,” “thank you,” and getting necessary information to staff the first time.

8. Speaking out? Not on every issue. If you have the reputation of blasting every bill that goes by for some defect, other members will simply step outside the chamber to talk with lobbyists or each other. If you are well-prepared and speak out regularly on a subject on which you have expertise, even if you lose the vote, there are real benefits.

Targeted tax incentives and expenditures are controversial. I fought this in 1996 with an amicus brief for the Locke Foundation. Preparation of that brief gave me the ammunition and academic support for opposing incentives. I was rarely successful. One defeat of an “economic development” subsidy occurred at the very end of the 2014 session. We would have lost even then if the Senate had not crammed it with so many extras that a majority of the House could find something to hate. On other occasions we would be temporarily successful, but the advocates of giveaways would rally their lobbyists and come back the next day with a slightly differing proposal that was just as bad.

There was a good result from speaking up through the years. We first obtained the majority in 2011. I was disappointed that we would have another targeted tax incentive giveaway. That year it was only $2 million wasted. In prior years we had seen hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on these schemes.

The ardor of supporters is diminished when they know its economic fallacies will be exposed on the floor and put to a recorded vote. Some of these proposals were not brought up at all because proponents knew they would be embarrassed.

In recent years these giveaways have become bigger and bolder because opponents have not been willing to speak up and expose the fallacies. 2021 “Apple Red” was recently designated as the Worst Deal of the Year by a national think tank. Its billion-dollar price tag was accompanied by the monthly billion-dollar revenue of Apple. It was passed in the same year that Apple’s future corporate income tax rate was cut to zero.

9. Rule of Tens. There are grassroots organizers who generate computer email to supporters. They receive a prewritten message supporting or opposing legislation. The flow of email is so vast that no one has time to read these after the second one. Staff count them. They “count” for something, but not much. It makes a citizen feel good to participate in the process, but one more identical email does not actually influence legislation. When you get more than two identical emails you know it’s a “grassroots” organizing group or an attack of the bots.

On the other hand, if you get an original email, even if it is short, you see that reflecting a real person. That is worth 10 mass emails.

If some one telephones a legislative office, she has to go to the trouble of looking up the number and spending some time with the representative or staff. That is a significant investment of time with the possibility for feedback. That is worth 10 individual personal emails. If Representative Stevens has any time management skills, she will make sure that she has a book, a computer nearby and some letters to sign during the phone call. Some calls come directly to the point. Most wander. Members have other work in hand when they take a telephone call. The telephone call is worth 100 mass emails.

A citizen can handle the member who may take the phone call but has her attention on something else. Show up in the office. Make eye contact. If (s)he is reading a book while (s)he is talking with you, that is obvious. A personal visit in the office is worth 1000 mass emails. But there is a better way yet.

Talk with your representative while he or she is in the district during the off-season (right now). If it is while the Legislature is in session visit on Friday, Saturday or Monday morning. If you vote in her district, your member wants to please you and actually has time. When the Assembly is in session representatives will sometimes eat breakfast or lunch while walking to the next committee meeting. They don’t have time to focus on you. A personal visit in the district is worth 10,000 mass emails.

10. Legislative “hitch hiking”. A bill is not a law. It is a file folder, a vessel for a proposed law. If you are in battle and your horse goes down, stand up and find another. If your bill is in trouble find out what the problem is, take the contents of that bill and either trim it down or reword it to get it past the problem. Or engraft it onto a different bill in a different committee with a more receptive chair.

A criminal procedure bill passed the House in 2015 with several dozen provisions. It looked like the Senate might not take it up because of opposition to two or three provisions. Some non-controversial provisions were added to other related Senate bills as they went through the House. Another started out as “Burt’s Law” but when “Burt” became law in a companion Senate bill, the House bill was available for a higher purpose. Other provisions needed an eligible bill already in committee and ready to go. Provisions of those bills were engrafted onto Burt’s Law and passed the House. If you are determined that the bill you introduce with the contents you propose and that it passes the House and the Senate and becomes law, you will have more signing ceremonies with the Governor and good politics. But you won’t get as much done.

HB 955 started out with revisions to Opportunity Scholarship. By filing the bill, it became accessible online www.ncleg.gov. Organizations which wanted to generate support could do so by referencing that bill. Since it directly affected the state budget the contents of HB 955 were placed into the budget in subcommittee. It survived attacks in subcommittee, full committee and on the floor. There were about nine hours of total debate. On the official records of the Assembly HB 955 died without action. But its provisions are now law. About 104,000 students applied for scholarships for 2025-26. The sponsors of HB 955 were delighted even though the bill with their names on it died.

You have a great idea that runs up against an implacable foe – Jabba the Hut. Neither persuasion, nor any other power, has any affect. What to do? Find out which of your ideas he doesn’t like, put them in other members’ bills and get it done anyway. It does not help if you are wedded to having your name on the law you proposed.

11. Strip and Replace. Use redundant or stranded bills for a higher purpose. In the 1989-90 session I discovered that possession of child pornography was not an offense in North Carolina, just manufacturing and distribution. Manufacturing / distribution is much harder to prove than possession.

Two companion bills related to immunity for donated food crossed over. The House bill became law. The Senate bill had passed the Senate but was in a House committee. It could be converted to a higher purpose. After the crossover deadline, the chairs let it to be considered. They knew that the Senate would claim that it was not eligible to be received in the Senate. But they needed to pacify an outspoken freshman of the minority party. Under those circumstances it easily passed the House. The Senate Rules Chair ruled that it was ineligible.

In 1990 Connie Wilson, a 30-year-old recently appointed freshman Senator, (a lame-duck when the session opened) had nothing to lose. She spoke to every Senator and obtained consent to a suspension of the rules. Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader and Rules Chair, Tony Rand, refused to bring it forward. Senator Wilson went to Lt. Gov. Jim Gardner and explained how important this bill was. Lt. Governor Gardner called in Senator Rand and said he was willing to make a political issue out of it if Senator Rand didn’t schedule it. It was on the calendar the next day and easily passed the Senate.

It has been the law since 1990. It is the reason why child porn prosecutions are more successful. These criminals may be guilty of 1^st or 2^nd degree child porn, but they have committed so many acts of possession in the 3^rd degree that they can get just as much jail time when sentenced on several counts of child porn in possession. The child does not have to testify.

12. You can’t do it alone. Nurture your allies.

“Let no one despise your youth” says Paul to Timothy. Don’t talk down to young or inexperienced members. They may be committee chairs next year. Listen to the gray heads. Don’t talk down to old men. They know lots of history that you do not. They have friends in high places that you did not realize.

13. Realistic goals or “shoot the moon?” For almost forty years after Roe vs. Wade (1973) there were state constitutional amendments proposed to stop abortion. These went nowhere. If passed they would not accomplish the goal since there was then no chance of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding them.

In 2011, we finally had a majority of pro-life members. We pursued a different strategy – actually stop as many abortions as possible. Although these might be challenged, we could continue on with the process because each proposal was relatively popular with voters and actually stopped many abortions. From 2011 through 2015 there were 9 pro-life measures passed. Only two were challenged in court. Of those the challenge to the “choose life” license plates was overruled after five years of litigation. The challenge to “Women’s Right to Know” was only partially successful, enjoining only one small section of a much longer law. The larger parts not enjoined probably saved the lives of 20% of all those who would otherwise have been terminated from 2012-2022. By starting with the easiest votes, members _____________ accustomed to voting pro-life.

14. Not all incremental steps are wise. Some are self-limiting. While in the minority the “Unborn Victims of Violence” act had been introduced many times, requiring that in a non-abortion case an unborn child would be treated as a separate victim. If an armed robber shot and injured a pregnant woman and the injury also killed her unborn child, that would not only be assault inflicting serious injury of the mother but also would be murder of the unborn child. It easily passed in 2011 and has never been challenged.

Some had proposed that we limit the unborn victims to those past 20 weeks of gestation. That would bring in enough votes from Democrats to pass. This would have been self-defeating. It introduced an artificial distinction that had no basis in biology. If we later put forward a 12-week gestational limit, the 20-week precedent could be used by abortion apologists as a rationale for not protecting younger human lives. The number of post 20-week abortions is less than 1%. The compromise we avoided allowed us to pass 9 pro-life laws in 2011-2015 without this artificial distinction. In 2023 a law was passed with a 12-week artificial cut off. We’ll see the effect in the future.

15. Pick your enemies as carefully as you pick your friends.

Pick your enemies carefully. There are some that make a big show but by defeating them you improve your own credibility.

16. Obtaining recorded votes is helpful but not if the bill has not been worked. Legislative tuition grants at the college level are an example. There were 11 votes in opposition the last time it was actually opposed on the floor. After that vote legislative opposition disappeared because the weakness of the opposition was clear.

17. You can wait until your bill’s opponent leaves office. I left office at the end of 2016. Several bills became law in 2017 that would never have seen the light of day if I had been there. I had not sufficiently explained the rationale for my opposition to my colleagues before I left.

18. Don’t just do something, Stand There!! Is that backwards? We see a problem and we want a solution now, but some tactics are nonproductive. In a high school basketball game of 1995 between Apex and its archrival, Cary, Apex was down 3 points with the ball and 5 seconds to go. A guard saw an opening, drove in for an easy layup at the buzzer.

Oh, wait!! I wonder why that basket was so easy. Maybe a time out would have been more productive.

I descend from an illegal alien who engaged in war crimes

January 23rd, 2026 by Skip

Why would I admit this? It started innocently enough. My mother was Danish American. She told me that Leif Erikson was my ancestor. That sounded cool when I was a young man, to be related to the first European discoverer of America. That was about 500 years before Columbus brought over three boatloads of Hispanics with no visas.

I inherited from my mother many of her books, including a History of the Kingdom of Denmark. I realized then that my Viking ancestors were pirates, thieves, murderers and rapists. I discovered that I shared my ancestor Leif with at least a third of Europe. There was nothing to be proud of. There was no “international law” at his time, but what Vikings did would be considered “war crimes” today.

I am proud of my Danish grandfather who played semi pro soccer for the Copenhagen team in 1910 and enlisted in the American Army in World War I. He died of malaria, contracted while he was in service. I am proud of our Danish cousin who was part of the Danish Resistance in World War II. He was tortured by the Nazis.

The Danes were the only occupied European country that effectively protected the Jews. When the Nazis ordered all Danish Jews to wear the Star of David (so they could be identified), the King of Denmark wore a Star of David riding his horse through public parks to encourage all Danes to wear the same star. When the big roundup of Jews was imminent, many, if not most, Jews were secretly sent one night across “the sound” to neutral Sweden for safety.

What does this have to do with current events? Leif’s dad, Eric the Red, settled in Greenland. From there Leif set out to discover North America. He conquered Labrador. Danish runes have been found as far west as Minnesota. The Danes have never claimed any part of Labrador or Minnesota, but, contrary to misinformation, they and the Inuit have been the real “owners” of Greenland for 1,000 years, not 300 years as some claim.

The United Nations Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are treaties which the US Senate ratified. Under the United States Constitution, Article VI second paragraph, these treaties are the ”supreme Law of the Land.” By the US Constitution, Article II section 3, the President is required to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

The UN charter prohibits aggressive war and even the threat of such war. Article V of the NATO Charter requires every member state to come to the aid of a member attacked. If the US Navy attacked Greenland, our Army and Marines would be required to defend Greenland. That would be awkward. All the European powers would be obliged to defend Denmark from America. That could be bloody.

A dozen Nazi and Japanese generals were hung by the neck for the War Crime of aggressive war.

It is not ambiguous or nuanced whether an order from the civilian authorities to the military to attack Greenland would be an unlawful order. Every member of the military from generals to privates would be legally obliged to disobey that order.

When I was 17, I enlisted in the Marine Corps. I never went to Vietnam. During that war the question of whether illegal orders should be disobeyed was covered. As a private, I was told that if I received an unlawful order, I was to disobey it. The president now says he will not use force to take Greenland, which would have been good information for our allies to have earlier. But if he changes his mind again, the US military won’t legally be allowed to help.

Paul “Skip” Stam works as a real estate and state constitutional law in Apex. He served 16 years in the NC House, the last 10 years as the GOP leader or speaker pro tem. Stam serves on the John Locke Foundation board.

Governor Hunt

January 7th, 2026 by Skip

James B. Hunt, Jr. died December 18, 2025. He served four terms as North Carolina’s governor from 1977 to the end of 1984 and then from 1993 to the end of 2000. He was the most consequential governor in North Carolina history and had many merits that I appreciate. He was diligent, productive, pragmatic and persuasive.

For all his merits and plaudits, he was extremely liberal on two important issues on which he would be considered an extremist today. The first is school choice. The second is abortion.

Governor Hunt And School Choice

In 1977 Jim Hunt implemented policies requiring state teacher certification for nonpublic schools and regulations regarding textbooks and curricula. In its 1977 session the General Assembly, at Governor Hunt’s behest, instituted a system of required competency tests which non-public high school students would have to pass in order to graduate. This led to a revolt, primarily from the religious non-public schools, a march in the capital and a court case. The revolt won in 1979.

The private schools’ most impressive show of strength took place April 26, 1978. About 5,000 Christian school supporters converged on the Wake County Courthouse during preliminary hearings in the case brought by the Hunt administration against schools that had refused to file new reports. The crowd, which had gathered to lend moral support to the cause, was dispersed by police. The Christian schools had to spend about $250,000 on legal expenses – a huge sum in those days.

In early 1979 the Christian schools shifted their attention to the legislative arena. Their efforts were successful. Bills were introduced to replace the existing regulatory laws and policies with two separate laws – one for religious schools and another for all other private schools –these would abolish all standards except a set of requirements regarding health, sanitation, attendance, and testing. After 88 days of personal lobbying by Christian school leaders and record volumes of real mail, both Houses passed the bills easily – by near-unanimous votes in the Senate and comfortable majorities in the House. This was long before email was used for grass roots lobbying.

When Governor Hunt first took office, North Carolina had one of the most restrictive regulatory environments for private and home schools in the nation. Today even liberals have given up on what Gov. Hunt advocated in 1977-78.The regulatory climate for school choice is now the most free in the nation. The battleground is no longer whether private/home schools should be free of government control but how much the state should pay for Opportunity Scholarships for all and how much would go to Education Savings Accounts for Children with Special Needs. The private schools have not resisted testing (Daniel 1: 8-20). The only question is which tests are sufficient. #Note: For this section I used: David Morgan’s August 8, 1980 “The History of Private School Regulation in North Carolina.”

Governor Hunt and Abortion

A Brief History of Carolina’s Abortion Funding

This section is mostly taken from Part VI of “The End of the North Carolina Abortion Fund” by Paul Stam. 22 Campbell Law Review 199 (Fall 1999) pages 137-139. Voluminous footnotes are available in the Law Review. The numbering of the footnotes is retained here.

In 1977, James B. Hunt took office as Governor of North Carolina for the first of four terms. 132 Later in 1977, Congress virtually ended the practice of using federal taxes to pay for medically unnecessary abortions through the Hyde Amendment. 133

Governor Hunt created a State Abortion Fund 134 , effective February 1, 1978, to pay for “medically unnecessary” abortions for the first twenty weeks of pregnancy. The term “medically unnecessary” was the term Governor Hunt used in his regulations. The Governor took $250,000 appropriated by the legislature for mental health and used these funds to pay for abortions. 135 Later, Hunt budgets requested the General Assembly to appropriate $1 million per year for taxpayer financed abortions.

In 1978 the author sued Governor Hunt in Stam v. State 302 NC 357 (1981) over the creation of the fund. Through counsel Governor Hunt admitted in court that:

“8. The genetic constitution of the preborn human organism is established when the mother’s ovum is fertilized by the father’s sperm.

9. The genetic constitution of the preborn human organism is distinct from that of each of its parents.

10. The genetic constitution of each preborn human organism is unique, except in the case of monozygotic twinning.

11. Normally the maternal and paternal contributions to the genetic constitution of the human organism are equal in quantity but vastly different with respect to the attributes conferred.

12. Normally the genetic constitution of the human organisms is not greatly changed from the time of fertilization to the time of death. The few genetic changes which may occur after fertilization are negligible in comparison to the genetic union which occurs at fertilization.

13. The preborn human organism is characterized by structural complexity sufficient to distinguish it from a tumor of maternal, embryonic, fetal, placental, or other origin.

14. The developing human organism is alive.

17. The normal fate of the fertilized ovum is development (embryonic, fetal, and postnatal) into a mature adult organism unless disease or extrinsic interference precludes this natural process.

22. Fetal viability has been made possible at increasingly early gestational ages as medical technology has advanced.

23. The circulatory systems of the preborn human organism and its mother are anatomically separate.

24. The heart of the preborn human organism normally starts to beat before the thirtieth day after fertilization.” Record on Appeal pp 18-22.”

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did not stop state funding of medically unnecessary abortions. It did stop such abortion funding by local government.

In 1979, Governor Hunt transferred $303,000 that had been appropriated for rest homes and used that money to pay for medical unnecessary abortions beyond the $1 million the General Assembly had appropriated at his request. 136 In 1980, Governor Hunt again needed more than the $1,000,000 the General Assembly had provided. He transferred $367,000 from Aid to Families with Dependent Children for medical unnecessary abortions. 137 In 1981, he again needed to find more money for abortion and again transferred $235,000 from Aid to Families with Dependent Children. 138

In 1982 the author and his wife sued Governor Hunt in Stam v. Hunt 66 NC APP 116 (1984) for the non-appropriation of $324.500 FY 1982-83. The Court of Appeals ignored the precedents cited and allowed Governor Hunt to spend the extra $324,500 for medically unnecessary abortions.

James Martin served two terms as governor from 1985 to the end of 1992. During these years, abortion funding fluctuated. Abortion funding was reduced to $924,000 from 1985 until the end of 1988 and then to $424,000 per year from 1989 to 1992. Democrats held majorities in the General Assembly while he was Governor.

When Jim Hunt took office again as Governor in 1993, abortion spending tripled at his request with yearly totals of $1,212,000.00 until the end of 1994. 139 In 1995, the General Assembly, for all practical purposes, ended state abortion funding and ended North Carolina’s seventeen-year history as the only southern state to pay for elective abortions. 140 In 1995 the senate had a 26-24 Democrat majority and the House had a 66 – 54 Republican majority. The Governor had not yet acquired the power to veto. ELECTIONS MATTER.

Prior to 1985, medically necessary abortions were explicitly not funded by the state. 141 Beginning in 1985 and continuing thereafter until July 1, 1995, a “health impairment exception” was included in the annual appropriations. 142 This exception was so broad as to effectively allow abortion on demand since the sole determinant was the description written by the doctor performing the abortion. The diagnoses that were listed under the exception included a vast majority of indications that are euphemisms for “elective” or non-therapeutic abortion. For example, of the 3233 “health impairment” abortions in the fiscal year of 1987-1988, 1,931 were “nonspecific”; 208 were for “adjustment reaction”; 156 for “emotional problems”; 239 for “stress reactions”. 143 As a consequence of varying criteria and funding levels the number of abortions funded by the NC State Abortion Fund since its inception were:

1977-1978 – 1123 Abortions
1978-1979 – 6125 Abortions
1979-1980 – 6343 Abortions
1980-1981 – 5730 Abortions
1981-1982 – 4295 Abortions
1982-1983 – 6149 Abortions
1983-1984 – 6645 Abortions
1984-1985 – 6564 Abortions
1985-1986 – 2662 Abortions
1986-1987 – 4181 Abortions
1987-1988 – 3600 Abortions
1988-1989 – 4137 Abortions
1989-1990 – 1921 Abortions
1990-1991 – 2330 Abortions
1991-1992 – 2156 Abortions
1992-1993 – 2132 Abortions
1993-1994 – 4448 Abortions
1994-1995 – 4587 Abortions
1995-1996 – 0 Abortions
1996-1997 – 1 Abortions
1997-1998 – 0 Abortions
1998-1999 – 0 Abortions

These numbers do not include abortions paid for under the federal Medicaid program. In 1997, Medicaid paid for 59 abortions involving claims of rape, 2 cases involving incest, and 5 cases involving danger to the life of the mother consistent with the Hyde Amendment. 145

There are dozens of policies related to abortion. Those arguing for tax paid medically unnecessary abortions for up to 20 weeks of pregnancy have the least support from the public – about 15%. Yet that was the position of Governor Hunt. He was an extremist on this issue.

The author served 16 years in the NC. House of Representatives – The last ten as the Minority leader, Majority leader and then Speaker Pro Tempore.

“Safe as Tylenol” – Propaganda about the Abortion Pill

December 29th, 2025 by Skip

About three-fourths of abortions committed in North Carolina are by chemicals.

Propagandists for the abortion industry claim mifepristone is “safer than Tylenol.” Really? This drug is 99.9% fatal to the unborn child. It is many times more dangerous to the mother than a surgical abortion. Why is that so? What is the evidence? There is also substantial evidence that mifepristone carries a significant risk of breast cancer later in life for women who take it.

North Carolina law requires that mifepristone be given in person by the doctor who examined the woman, including an ultrasound. The doctor is then to go over what is necessary for informed consent and the lack of coercion. Without these procedures there is no way to proceed safely.

In 1994 pro-abortion Governor Jim Hunt’s DHHS ruled that every clinic abortion must be preceded by an ultrasound to see if the woman is actually pregnant and whether the embryo is in the uterus (good) or in the fallopian tube (bad). The unborn child cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube. If the issue is not resolved promptly the mother’s life will be in serious danger. In 2016 Planned Parenthood publicly stated that it required ultrasounds before every abortion. Planned Parenthood’s tune changed in 2022 after Roe v. Wade was overturned.

While 69% of reported abortions performed in North Carolina are chemical abortions, the real number of chemical abortions is unknown. Many of the chemical abortions are “self-managed” and facilitated by out-of-state/overseas doctors or pure profiteers. Many are from Eastern Europe or India. The results would be what you expect. No examination, improper or non-existing consent, no ultrasound to rule out an ectopic pregnancy, and no accountability when things go wrong.

A recent review of private medical insurance data determined that more than 1 in 10 women who take mifepristone suffer a serious adverse event. The rate of serious adverse events such as sepsis, infection and hemorrhage is at least 22 times higher than what the FDA and manufacturer boast. Another study released in May 2025 suggested the number of serious complications that result from abortion could be higher than estimated after researchers found that the number of post-abortion emergency room visits that were misclassified as miscarriages has increased significantly over the last decade. As the pro-abortion Society of Family Planning most recent #WeCount report states, abortion rates have increased following the overturning of Roe v. Wade even in states that protect unborn children.

Why? In 2021, the Biden FDA stripped away the in-person dispensing rule for mifepristone. Biden’s FDA made these high-risk drugs available by mail without any interaction with a doctor to evaluate whether the woman is even pregnant, the gestational age of her baby, if she is ordering the drugs willingly, whether the recipient is an abuser, and even without the necessary blood test to prevent serious problems in subsequent pregnancy.

This practice facilitates coercion by “boyfriends.” Yes, men can order the pills and administer them either by deceit or by coercion.

In October 2023 Rosalie, of Louisiana, took a pregnancy test. “When I took the test I immediately saw the line. The first thing I did was just smile,” she said. This turned into a nightmare for Rosalie. “He told me that he actually did not want to keep the child,” Rosalie said. When Rosalie insisted on raising her child, her “boyfriend” grew furious and eventually ordered abortion drugs by mail from a “doctor” in California. “I want it. He did not.” Rosalie’s “boyfriend” got angry and things became very scary for her. He had a criminal record, and she had been a victim of domestic abuse before. She was “terrified” and felt coerced into taking the drugs. Despite efforts to vomit the drugs and save her baby, Rosalie saw blood and knew her chances of saving her baby were slim. Abortion drugs killed Rosalie’s child. If Biden’s FDA had not removed in-person dispensing, her “boyfriend” would not have been able to obtain abortion drugs and “pressure me to take them against my will,” Rosalie said.

Recent data from Louisiana showed that the state saw more mail-order abortions in 2024 (7,510) than the total clinic-provided abortions in 2020 (7,143) and 2021 (7,444).

Complications from this drug are vastly underreported. Studies are becoming more readily available to illuminate the true number of complications and adverse effects that arise from the use of the abortion pill. In September 2025, Randal K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life Director of Education and Research wrote, “Independent research demonstrates that complications from the abortion drug mifepristone occur at far higher rates than abortion advocates and the media typically report. While abortion industry studies claim serious complications occur in less than 1/2 of 1% of cases, a major 2024 analysis of over 865,000 insurance claims found serious adverse events—hemorrhage, infection, failed abortions, and surgical follow-up—occurred in about 11% of women.”

Recent research from the People’s Republic of China suggests that mifepristone is associated with the future development of breast cancer in the mother. In general statistics from the PRC are notoriously manipulated by the government. On this issue there would be no ideological reason for the government to manipulate, Mifepristone has been used widely in China for 20 years. Preliminary analysis of the results is that prior use twice of mifepristone renders the mother seven times more likely to develop breast cancer than a woman with one or no prior abortions. More research is needed. If this association is proved to be causal then even extreme feminists and liberal politicians will rue the day they pushed mifepristone on millions of unsuspecting women.

Jessica Grabowski, a researcher for NC Right to Life, provided much of this information in the Fall 2025 edition of The Concept.

Paul Stam served 16 years in the North Carolina House, the last 10 as Minority Leader, Majority Leader and Speaker Pro Tem.

Questions about Inflation and the Cost of Living from the 2024 Republican National Committee Platform of July 15, 2024

December 29th, 2025 by Skip

Friends and clients have asked questions about the Republican National Committee (RNC) 2024 Platform. For context, I attach the entire RNC platform. Excerpts from the RNC platform are in quotation marks. My comments are in green italics.

“President Trump’s economic policy to end Inflation”

The primary cause of inflation is large annual budget deficits ($1.7 Trillion likely this year) and the cumulative $38 Trillion national debt.

“11. REBUILD OUR CITIES, INCLUDING WASHINGTON DC”

Is this intended as a new federal responsibility? Add a hundred billion dollars to the debt.

“14. FIGHT FOR AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE”

Responsible leaders know that the retirement age must be raised. We live longer. Decades ago, 16 workers supported one retiree. Now the ratio is less than 3:1 and headed to 2:1

Interest payments on the national debt already exceed the cost of Medicare and exceed the cost of national defense. If we wait another four years to fix this, we will have to take drastic action when we raise the retirement age.

“1. DEFEAT INFLATION, AND QUICKLY BRING DOWN ALL PRICES.”

Defeating continued inflation does not bring down all prices quickly. That is “deflation” and only happens in a deep recession or depression. Why would you buy nonperishable and non-urgent goods and services if you expect the price to go down next month?

“2. REIN IN WASTEFUL FEDERAL SPENDING”

“Republicans will immediately stabilize the Economy by slashing wasteful Government spending and promoting Economic Growth.”

The only wasteful spending itemized in the platform is luxury housing for illegal alien. This is an expense borne by foolish local governments, not by the federal government.

“War breeds Inflation while geopolitical stability brings price stability”

Whether war breeds inflation depends on how it is financed and what the alternatives are.

“and lowering commodity prices”

Is this a proposal for federal price controls on commodities? Price controls are a disaster.

“CHAPTER FOUR: BRING BACK THE AMERICAN DREAM AND MAKE IT AFFORDABLE AGAIN FOR FAMILIES, YOUNG PEOPLE, AND EVERYONE”

“To help new home buyers, Republicans will reduce mortgage rates by slashing inflation”

Does the rest of the program slash inflation or fuel it? It will not reduce mortgage rates if the rest of the program fuels inflation.

“promote homeownership through Tax Incentives and support for first-time buyers”

Whether by a tax credit or by direct grant, this will drive up the deficit and the debt, fueling inflation. This was part of the recipe that gave us the Great Recession of 2008-2010.

“CHAPTER FIVE: PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS AND FARMERS FROM UNFAIR TRADE”

“Republicans will support baseline Tariffs on Foreign-made goods”

A tariff is a tax on imports. The burden is mostly paid by consumers.

“As Tariffs on Foreign Producers go up, Taxes on American Workers, Families, and Businesses can come down.”

Tariffs drive up the cost of living so consumers don’t see the embedded tax they actually pay.

“Buy American and Hire American Policies, banning companies that outsource jobs from doing business with the Federal Government.”

There are some national security goods and services that must not be outsourced. This provision would drive up the cost of most of what the government buys, increasing the deficit and debt, fueling inflation. The economic law of “comparative advantage” can be broken by policy makers, They cannot avoid the expensive consequences.

“he [Trump] will not cut one penny from Medicare or Social Security”

Not raising the retirement age ensures huge cuts in future benefits or huge increases in payroll taxes.

“support hardening schools to help keep violence away from our places of learning”

This requires the Federal Government to expand its budget for education by tens of billions of dollars to send to schools. This should be a state and local responsibility

“replenishing Police Departments”

There is already federal funding for police departments through grants. If this platform proposes significant “replenishing,” this raises the deficit and the debt, fueling inflation.

Paul Stam served 16 years in the N.C. House of Representatives, The last 10 of which as Republican Leader and Speaker Pro Tempore. For comments, email paulstam@stamlawfirm.com.

Documents: RNC on Inflation, the Cost of Living

Property Tax Ideas

December 16th, 2025 by Skip

To the Chairs and ranking Members of the House Property Tax Study Committee,

Earlier this year I had fun teaching a course in advanced civics at Bob Luddy’s three Thales High Schools. I had to bone up on my notes on all types of taxation. Here are some points that I hope the Study Committee will consider.

The property tax in North Carolina scores well on some basic principles of taxation to wit: transparency, stability, and fairness.

Transparency. It is transparent because every taxpayer knows exactly how much is being paid and to what level of government. This may be somewhat less true as to those who pay their property tax bill through an escrow with the mortgage company and don’t pay attention to it. But they can know exactly if they want to. Scoring at the bottom on these criteriaare tariffs and gambling taxes.

Stability. Property tax collections are up there at 98-99% year in and year out. Even in the dozen or so counties that don’t have a local bill requiring that property taxes which are delinquent be paid at recording.

Fairness. The property tax is based on ability to pay. Although that is true as to wealth it’s not necessarily true as to income. There are people who are land rich and cash poor either because they are retired or disabled and some provision is made for them. Perhaps this should be broadened some. There are people who are not so poor or disabled but are on a fixed income or lower income for whatever reason. Perhaps they could defer payments for several years, say five or six years or upon sale or death. The 8% interest rate would discourage folks from using that unnecessarily.

The property tax exemption for farmland and forests. In most cases it allows the taxable amount to be almost nothing, but the deferred value is due upon sale and requires repayment of the deferred tax for the current year and three prior years. I have represented hundreds of such sellers. I don’t think it would be amiss to make that five or six years instead of three to make up some of the lost taxation from other reforms you may consider.

The incidence of taxation is different than who pays it. Renters bear the incidence of property tax. It’s just included in their rent, either explicitly or implicitly. Some voters are unaware of that and prefer sales tax to catch “those people who don’t pay taxes.” “Those people” do pay property tax.

Property tax cannot be divorced from the subject of exemptions generally. Rural hospitals, normal churches and other charitable organizations don’t need to be paying property tax, if they follow all the other rules. Some act like for-profit businesses should.

My suggestion would be that property tax exemptions should be denied for entities that have all of the following characteristics: 1) they pay any employee more than $750,000 a year (details later) and 2) their gross revenue is more than $30 million/year. If the entity bills its clients or patients directly for services, then the $30 million/year should be slightly less. The $750,000 limit should apply to any family that cumulatively exceeds $750,000. That limit should include any family member contracting with the entity.

The Committee should be aware that many states have much higher property taxes however denominated e.g. millage notes.

I would be pleased to offer additional ideas to the Committee when you have some more concrete ideas.

Cordially,

Skip Stam

Letters: Property Tax Ideas

The Latest Threat to Public Education – Rain!!!

December 11th, 2025 by Skip

A few years ago Wake County Public Schools cancelled classes for two days because of a threatened hurricane. Total rainfall at Raleigh-Durham Airport was one inch.

Pandemic instruction by Zoom was in vogue. One day there was actual rain. Wake County told its 150,000 students to study on their own. I protested to the school board and offered my services. The next time this occurred I offered to teach all 4th graders in the entire system for an hour of geography or history. I would need two tech people to help. One of the senior board members responded. She would help me teach as well.

The reason for that day’s cancellation of instruction? Actual rain. Some teachers would not be able to get to their schools to teach Zoom classes from the school building!

The night before December 8, 2025, school was cancelled for impending “wintry weather.” Dawn revealed business parking lots full. I invited my high school grandsons to go swimming with me outside at the Triangle Aquatic Center. When we arrived at 2:00 I was surprised to see extensive parking lots full. Many swim teams had moved up their practice schedules for the new wintry weather forecast to arrive at 4:00. There was still room for us in the heated outdoor pool. We enjoyed a long swim in 30° air and 80° water.

Due to impending “wintry weather” forecast for December 9, the school system again cancelled school. I did find 1/10 inch of snow on my car. I headed out to work.

All of these decisions were done out of concern for the safety of children. Most children will not be safer at home than traveling to school and staying there for the day. When the school system cancels classes many children will be home alone. Some parents or caretakers will be unable to skip work. Some parents will think that their children will be fine in these circumstances. They will either be home alone or at the mall, the movie theater, swimming, playing basketball or soccer at the park, or even skateboarding and other bone-breaking activities.

My “back of the envelope” estimate is that each day that school is closed taxpayers will see about $7 million of missed education for school children. Cynics would say that the system is trying to minimize the system’s financial liability for accidents and shift that liability to parents.

What is the purpose of a public school system? I hope the purpose is education rather than childcare. I hope that the system would consider that children are just as exposed to harm when school is suddenly closed as when it is open.

In my day we did not walk to school when the snow was a foot deep. That is a pleasant myth. I never remember school closed for rain or for 1/10 of an inch of snow.

How to resolve NC’s budget impasse

November 20th, 2025 by Skip

House and Senate leaders say they will not take up the state budget again until 2026, leaving North Carolina as the only state in the nation without a budget at this point. Here are some suggestions to help resolve the big issues.

Corporate Income Tax

I applaud the Senate and the House for continuing to reduce corporate income tax to zero. That is a small part of our revenue. It is a double tax on the same income. It is a highly regressive tax. By continuing the law that it goes to zero, corporations can invest here with confidence that by the time they start making money, that irrational double tax will not be one to consider. Democrats might squeal, but it is the right policy.

Personal Income Tax

There are three problems with the Senate position on “triggers” to determine future income tax cuts.

The triggers were not adjusted for inflation or for an increase in the population. Those adjustments are normal for a “TABOR” (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) calculation on spending. The effect of not adjusting the triggers for inflation and population is to illogically reduce tax rates long before anyone anticipates (or should have) the effect. We know that the federal government is sending less money to North Carolina.

As pointed out by John Hood (article), the effect of this premature reduction in income tax rates is to fill the unmet serious needs of state government with excise taxes on gambling, alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana (why not taxes on prostitution?). Regardless of your moral position on these activities, the taxes violate basic principles of tax policy such as stability and transparency. Each are highly regressive. “Don’t tax me; don’t tax thee; tax the fellow behind the tree,” is the theme.

The Senate position is based upon an economic and logical fallacy as well as a one-way anomaly. When we reduced personal income tax in 2011-2013 from almost 8% down to 6%, more revenue came in. Why? We were the highest income tax rate amongst our neighbors and competitors. These high rates dragged down economic growth. When the income tax rate was reduced from 6% down to 4.5%, more revenue came in for similar reasons. It is magical thinking that reducing income tax rates further, down to 3.5% or 2% will produce more revenue.

The personal income tax has been and still is half of the receipts for the general fund. The nonpartisan staff has projected a structural fiscal cliff coming up. It is obvious to me that there will be diminishing returns from further reduction of personal income tax rates below 4%.

Senate negotiators claim that the House is violating a 2023 agreement. Aside from the obvious fact that one assembly can not bind another, it is useful to note that the Senate passed its budget first, violating the 2023 “agreement” before the House did.

Tips and Tax Holiday

I agree with the Senate position on taxes on tips and the resurrected Sales Tax Holiday. These make no sense. There is no reason to tax tips differently than other taxes on income. A Sales Tax Holiday is just a gimmick. Parents buy school supplies year-round now. The “Big Beautiful Bill” provision on tips is a shadow of its title. The effect, if serious, is that workers will just classify more of their income as “tips” rather than as a bonus or other ordinary income.

NC Innovation

Giving $500 million in state funding to NC Innovation was a terrible idea from the start — corporate welfare run amok. The Senate now realizes that. The House position is better.

Masters Pay

I agree with the Senate. I spent 16 years on education committees. All the evidence I saw was that masters pay did not make any difference in the effectiveness of teachers. Trim that item down so that is only applies to physics, chemistry, and special education teachers. General education or liberal arts masters pay is a waste of money.

These are just my humble suggestions to solve the budget impasse.

Absurd Abortion Industry Propaganda on the LAW

November 4th, 2025 by Skip

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade. Effective July 1, 2023, the NC General Assembly passed SB20 to protect women and some unborn children.

Immediately a legislative leader began raising money on the assertion that the U.S. Supreme Court took away a constitutional right after 49 ½ years and that North Carolina had enacted a “ban.” That is false propaganda.

Justice Alito went to great lengths to clearly demonstrate there never was a constitutional right to abortion. Ask a 5^th grader to find the right to abortion in the Constitution. She will tell you it is not there. It never was, except in the fevered imaginations of seven old men with black robes in 1973. They are now dead.

In North Carolina, abortion has always been a crime, a misdemeanor from 1669-1881 and a felony from 1881-1973. It is still a felony to “help” a friend. Let’s review the history:

In 1859 the American Medical Association unanimously adopted a resolution “condemning abortion at every period of gestation, except as necessary to preserve the life of mother or child”. The stated reason was the increasing frequency “of such unwarrantable destruction of human life.”

The common law, as of 1776, made abortion a crime from conception. “The moment the womb is instinct with embryo life and gestation has begun . . .” the crime may be committed, State v. Slagle (1880) and N.C.G.S. 4-1.

These “facts of life” have been well known for two centuries. The very first two sentences of The Developing Human – Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd ed 1977) by Keith Moore states:

“Development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) is fertilized by a spermatozoon and ends at death. It is a process of growth and differentiation which transforms the zygote, a single cell, into a multicellular adult human being.”

No new science has changed that in the last 48 years. Even after Roe v Wade (1973) most abortionists admit that after conception the embryo and fetus are living human beings. I have publicly debated two abortionists and deposed two others under oath. They each said they were terminating living human beings.

Only politicians and the press deny this obvious fact of life.

Law caught up with science in the 19^th century. By 1868, the vast majority of states and territories criminalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health (2022) lists several dozen statutes from the mid-19^th century. Many of the state court decisions made the point that these protective laws were motivated by the fact that abortion kills a human being. 13 of the Territories criminalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy between 1850

(Hawaii) and 1919 (New Mexico). By the end of the 1950s, all but four States and the District of Columbia prohibited abortion, unless performed to preserve the life of the mother.

How does NC law treat unborn children in civil cases?

Property of one dying without a will immediately vests in an unborn child. In 1823, a statute clarified: “[n]o inheritance shall descend to any person, unless such person shall be in life at the death of the person last seized, or shall be born within ten months after the death of the person last seized.” Ten lunar months are 280 days normal gestation. By 1839 a child, once conceived, could take property under a will to “children.” In 1854 statutes clarified that “[a]n infant unborn . . . shall be deemed a person capable of taking by deed as if he were born.”

Until Roe v Wade (1973), for all purposes beneficial to her, the preborn child was protected by the civil law and the criminal law of almost all of the nation. Law and biology were consistent and considered the child in the womb to be within the protection of law from conception. Since 1967, North Carolina law has allowed the abortion of these living human beings if performed by doctors –currently up to the 12th week of pregnancy.

No constitutional right, state or federal, stands in the way of laws protecting the unborn child.

The writer, Paul Stam, served 16 years in the House of Representatives, the last 10 as Republican Leader and Speaker Pro Tem. He can be reached at paulstam@stamlawfirm.com.

Documents: Recognizing Abortion Propaganda – 11.4.25

The BAN! Is That Even More Abortion Industry Propaganda?

October 28th, 2025 by Skip

How can you tell when you hear or see propaganda instead of reasoned debate or analysis on the subject of abortion?

If a reporter or politician refers to North Carolina’s 2023 Abortion Law as a “ban,” it is propaganda. “Ban” rhymes with “Taliban” and means a total prohibition. I have never seen a “ban.” An exception for the life of the mother is implied in law even when not expressed. Most statutes include other exceptions or definitions that operate as exceptions. North Carolina’s 2023 legislation has seven (7) specific exceptions. Yet it has been called a “ban.”

Only 1/10 of 1% of abortions are committed because of a threat to a mother’s life or because of the risk of serious physical health problem. Such abortions are not and will not be any kind of offense.

There are seven (7) exceptions in North Carolina law which collectively allow for almost 95% of all abortions.

Abortions prior to 12 weeks gestation are not prohibited. About 90% of all abortions are performed at or prior to 12 weeks.
Abortions to save the life of the mother have never been prohibited.
Abortions to preserve her physical health from serious harm are not prohibited.
Abortions of the unborn child caused by rape are not prohibited through 20 weeks gestation.
Abortions of the unborn child caused by incest are not prohibited through 20 weeks gestation.
Through 24 weeks of gestation abortions are permitted in case of “life limiting” anomalies of the child.
Removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not prohibited.

The writer, Paul Stam, served 16 years in the NC House, the last 10 as Republican Leader and Speaker Pro Tem. He can be reached at paulstam@stamlawfirm.com.

Abortion Industry Propaganda

October 21st, 2025 by Skip

How can you tell if you are hearing or seeing propaganda instead of reasoned debate or analysis?

If there is no mention of the child at all, not even a mention of a “fetus” or “embryo,” or if there is no photo of the unborn child, or even a written description of her appearance, that is propaganda.

If the unborn child is called a “fetus” or “embryo” that might be propaganda. “Fetus” is a proper medical term for an unborn child from 13 weeks gestation (11 weeks after fertilization). “Fetus” means “offspring” or “progeny.” The feminine is “parva fetus.” If abortionists want to use Latin to dehumanize the child, then the equivalent correct medical term for the mother would be “gravida.” There is no masculine equivalent, despite the wild imaginations of those who refer to “pregnant people” rather than “pregnant women.”

To imply that an unborn child is not a “child” but a “fetus” or an “embryo” is logically analogous to saying that “she is not a child, she is a toddler.” “Fetus,” like “toddler,” designates a specific phase of the state of “childhood.”

Photos of the unborn child at 11, 13, 17 and 25 weeks gestation are seen below.

I deposed an abortionist under oath. In addition to the 65,000 abortions he performed in Jacksonville, he also had a side business of fertility treatments. He published a huge ad in the Raleigh News & Observer for his fertility business. It was entitled “Mr. & Mrs. Johnson Meet Their Son For the First Time.” It included an ultrasound photo of a preborn child only six weeks after fertilization. I asked him how he could refer to him as a “son” when he aborted thousands of them at the same age. He answered that his staff wrote that ad. He didn’t like it!!

The writer, Paul Stam, served 16 years in the NC House, the last 10 as Republican Leader and Speaker Pro Tem. See Articles on www.paulstam.info for further information. He can be reached at paulstam@stamlawfirm.com.

Figure 1. A transvaginal 3D ultrasound (with superficial rendering) of an 11-week fetus. Note its relatively large head. The limbs are fully developed. An auricle can also be observed on the left lateral aspect of the head.

Figure 2. Enlarged photograph of the head and superior part of the trunk of a 13-week fetus.

Figure 3. Photograph of a 17-week fetus. Note that the ears stand out from the head and that no hair is visible. Since there is no subcutaneous fat, the skin is thin, and the blood vessels of the head are visible. Fetuses at this age are unable to survive if born prematurely, mainly because their respiratory system is immature. The alveolar area is insufficient, and the vascularity of the lungs is underdeveloped.

Figure 4. Photographs of a 25-week fetus. Note the wrinkled skin and rather lean body, resulting from the scarcity of subcutaneous fat. Observe that the eyes are beginning to open. A fetus of this size might survive if born prematurely, although it is not usually considered a viable fetus mainly because the lungs have not developed enough to provide adequate gas exchange.

Human Cloning – What could possibly go wrong?

October 16th, 2025 by Skip

Here are 10 sets of questions that may help us think this practice through and through.

If only one parent becomes necessary for reproduction, what social structure will be required to see that two adults are normally responsible for the support of a child? If the second parent is only “on the hook” as a matter of contract and not as a matter of a shared life, what will keep that parent sacrificing in the lean years?
Should the law impose on the cloner secondary duties of child support and visitation. Why is there any less duty of support for the cloner than on a “father” who is liable for 18 years of support for contributing nothing more to a child’s life than sperm. The cloner specifically intended a child.
Should the amount of child support for which the cloner is liable be based on the mother’s standard of living or on the cloner’s standard of living.
We would be put off if an eccentric rich guy decided to make 100 clones of Putin or Elon. But these men control great wealth and have little common sense. If the law allows cloning of individual human beings for humanitarian purposes, does anyone think that the law could then prevent Kardashians from plaguing the 21st century with new yapping Kardashians if her or their ? vanity demanded it.
Surrogate motherhood, in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination already separate reproduction from sex but genetic biodiversity is not adversely impacted because the male contribution to the DNA is still present. With cloning will biologic homogeneity provide avenues for epidemic diseases similar to what the Irish potato did to Ireland in the 19th century?
People die prematurely. There are divorces, accidents, murders. One of the wonderful things about courtship, followed by marriage, then sex and then children is that a child has not only two parents but two families – multiple grandparents, in-laws, cousins, and siblings. This support structure can step in when one or both parents fail. If a child is intentionally created with only half of that support structure, to whom will the child turn when the other half fails?
May a cloned human being be held in slavery? If not, can a child be cloned for the purpose of a tissue match for the parent? Assuming that use of the child for that purpose entails some risk or pain, who will give informed consent? If it is the parent have we not in effect sanctioned slavery, that is, using another human being as a means – not empowering that human being as an end in herself.
If there is no need for men in family formation what social consequences can we predict from an increase in the number of families without a father?
The fertility rate is quickly dropping in America. Is the population now dropping so quickly that the usual, virtually free and pleasurable method of producing children needs to be supplemented by hyper-expensive methods? Couldn’t this be handled by simply encouraging adoption. Is the problem lack of children or vanity?
Is the vanity of a person who simply won’t mix his genes with another – if not in bed at least in the test tube – an important interest that needs to be humored by society? Is character development enhanced if those wishing to create children were required to develop social skills creating children in the context of a family?

Let me close with a musing from John Donne. Please imagine the cloner absorbing these thoughts from her patient.

Muse not that by thy mind my body’s led
For by thy mind my mind’s distempered.

So thy cares live long, for I, bearing part,
It eats not only thine, but my swollen heart.

And when it gives us intermission
We take new hearts for it to feed upon.

I look forward to some answers to these questions.

Words Matter: The good, bad, and ugly of DEI. Part 3: The ugly

September 16th, 2025 by Skip

“DEI” is commonly and carelessly used as if its three components were equivalent. They are not the same. This three-part series of essays explains and distinguishes among the three terms: diversity, equity, and inclusion. These terms would never have been used if there were not some sense in which each has a positive meaning.

This first installment explores the primary meanings, which are themselves good. The second essay explored how each has been used in a negative or even foolish way. This final essay demonstrates how these concepts can be twisted to be evil or ugly — hence the title.

The UGLY of DEI is the final installment

Diversity

Diversity based on identity becomes even uglier when recognized as diverse because of artificial, speculative, or even temporary self-chosen identities.

2. Equity — An extreme example of injustice:

MESOPOTAMIA

THE CODE OF HAMMURABI (c. 1780 BC)

230

If [the fallen house] kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

This vicious punishment is contrary to the law given by Moses, circa 1400 BC

Deuteronomy 24

¹⁶Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Aristotle reportedly said, “We know it is unjust to treat equal things unequally. But it is also unjust to treat unequal things equally.”

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 5

Collective punishment

Fascists, Nazis and Communists had no compunction against collective punishments — directly contrary to Western principles of justice considered in the first installment.

Nuremberg Trial proceedings — Indictment:

Count Three

Oct. 18, 1945

COUNT THREE — WAR CRIMES

“VIII. (F) THE EXACTION OF COLLECTIVE PENALTIES

“The Germans pursued a systematic policy of inflicting, in all the occupied countries, collective penalties, pecuniary and otherwise, upon the population for acts of individuals for which it could not be regarded as collectively responsible; this was done at many places, including Oslo, Stavanger, Trondheim, and Rogaland.

“These acts violated Article 50, Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and Article 6 (b) of the Charter.”

Stalin murdered tens of millions in his purges. It was guilt by association. Among other crimes, he caused millions of Ukrainian peasants to starve to death. Mao murdered several tens of millions — most by starvation — again, guilt by association with the landlord class and the educated. Some died by cannibalism.

On Aug. 26, 2025, Pope Leo XIV referred to the suffering in Gaza as “collective punishment.”

Reparations

Merriam-Webster defines reparations as “the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury.” This goes far beyond restitution which involves a specific wrongdoer paying compensation to the specific victim of a specific wrong.

Reparations for the descendants of enslaved Africans in the United States has gained support over the past decades. Apologies for slavery and Jim Crow by the US House of Representatives in 2008,and the US Senate in 2009 were preceeded by a 2007 resolution in the NC House.

As of March 6, 2024, 22 localities had approved a reparations commission or task force and 11 states have considered legislation to create one. In October 2020, California created a reparations task force to study and develop proposals for redressing injustices experienced by African Americans in the state, with special consideration for descendants of people enslaved in the United States. On Sept. 12, 2025, California lawmakers passed a law allowing priority college admission for descendants of slaves.

How would one decide who pays and who gets reparations? An American politician is the daughter of a Tamil Indian physician mother and a Jamaican-born father. Her mother’s family is of the Brahman caste, the highest in the Indian caste system, historically advantaged over lower castes such as the Dalits (untouchables). Her father is descended both from enslaved Jamaicans and, according to family lore, an Irish slaveowner. For the purpose of deciding reparations, would this politician deserve compensation for her father’s ancestors’ past suffering? Or should this person pay reparations to compensate for her mother’s ancestors’ oppression of the untouchables and her Irish ancestors’ slaveholdings?

America is made up of immigrants from the whole world, including “Native” American, who immigrated from Siberia if you trace far enough back. Are those clamoring for reparations today demanding compensation for wrongs they did not personally suffer from those who did not personally harm them?

3. Inclusion

The ugly side of inclusion ignores the reality of biological differences between men and women, advocating for biologically male ‘transgender women’ to compete in women’s athletic events.

A Heritage Foundation article recounted Lia Thomas’ suit against World Aquatics for refusing to allow her to compete in women’s elite swimming events.

“So yes, Lia Thomas — at 6 feet, 1 inch tall, with broader shoulders, higher muscle mass, greater bone density and longer legs — has a distinct athletic benefit over even the most highly trained female aquatic competitors in the world.

“Feminists stress the ‘illusion of difference’ between the sexes, claiming that if ‘women cut their hair the same way as men, wore “men’s” clothes, and didn’t shave their legs and underarms, wear makeup, or pluck their eyebrows, they wouldn’t look nearly as different from men as they do.’”

The University of Pennsylvania has apologized to the victims of its wrongheaded policies and restored medals to those cheated by Lia Thomas.

Womanhood is not makeup, hairstyles, dresses or high heels.

>>> Women’s Sports on the Chopping Block

“A favorite tactic of the anti-biology crowd is to force a convolution of the sexes and paint immutable differences as artificial, ensuring that women’s equality can be decimated sport by sport, bathroom by bathroom, program by program,” the article stated.

Everyone can recognize these differences between the sexes, which is why there needs to be active effort to convince people young and old to ignore that innate ability to recognize them. The logic behind Civil Rights gains for women was that “while men and women are different, opportunities for each must be equal.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in 1996 in U.S. v. Virginia: “Physical differences between men and women, however, are enduring: ‘[T]he two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both.’”

The Civil rights Act of 1965 was passed the same year that the 2^nd edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage was published. It says those who confuse gender with sex are joking or blundering. Homer “nodded.” Gorsuch “blundered.”

For a prescient article on this subject, read www.paulstam.info, Articles for 2016. “Legends v. the Truth,” pages 11-17.

DEAR READERS

Send your nomination of words that confuse policy to paulstam@stamlawfirm.com. This seventh installment appears in a series: The GOOD, The BAD, and The UGLY, in three parts. Parts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI explored corruption, liberal/conservative/ progressive, legalize/decriminalize, nonprofit, bipartisan, democracy/republic, forgive, mandate, fascism, Marxist, traitor, treason, gaming, gambling, amnesty, politically motivated, fraction of, decimate, honor and privilege. Part VIII will look at the differences among profanity, cursing, and swearing. For more information, see Parts I – VII under Articles for 2025, www.paulstam.info.

Words Matter: The good, bad, and ugly of DEI. Part 2: The bad

September 10th, 2025 by Skip

This first installment explores the primary meanings, which are themselves good. This second essay will explore how each has been used in a negative or even foolish way. The final essay demonstrates how these concepts can be twisted to be evil — hence the title.

The BAD of DEI is the second installment

Diversity

AI overview excerpt:

While diversity offers benefits, it also presents challenges. These can include increased conflict due to differing perspectives, communication barriers, difficulties in building trust and cohesion, particularly in the short term, resistance to change, difficulties in integration, and tokenism.

Downside of diversity A Harvard political scientist found that diversity hurts civic life.

By Michael Jonas | Aug. 5, 2007

“IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength: our differences make us stronger.

“But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” . . . has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

“We can’t ignore the findings,” says Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. “The big question we have to ask ourselves is, what do we do about it; what are the next steps?”

The BAD in Diversity is made clear by the experiences of Dr. Kendall Conger with Duke Hospital. Please read the link to get the full details:

I Challenged Duke’s DEI Dogma — and Paid With My Job | RealClearInvestigations

Duke covered itself in shame by its treatment of this doctor who just wanted to provide the best medical care that he could in the Emergency Room. Duke sacrificed excellence in medical care to the whims of groupthink in its quest to become as diverse as the world. The collateral consequences to Dr. Conger and to Duke’s patients will take a long time to heal.

Duke was not alone. UNC-Chapel Hill School of Medicine was in the grip of the diversity queens for years. Hopefully cooler heads will now prevail.

But we must be careful. While much DEI in medicine is foolish, there are aspects that must be respected because they are based on real biological differences. Sickle cell anemia is a serious condition for African Americans. It can be treated with power red blood cells. Some conditions are unique to women. Yet much medical research is performed on men. To ask for more research on women’s medical problems is not “woke” but reality.

2. Equity – a bad attempt at Equity

MESOPOTAMIA

THE CODE OF HAMMURABI (c. 1780 BC)

229

If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

(The Code of Hammurabi, translated by LW King (1910) is linked here.)

3. Inclusion

Set asides or quotas for appointees to committees, admissions, commissions, and contracts with a major qualification being identities of those concerned.

Admissions to public universities and publicly supported private universities were addressed in the US Supreme Court case of Committee for Fair Admissions vs Harvard University and University of North Carolina. The ramifications are still being felt. How this will apply to private secondary schools and military academies is not yet known.

In 1970, the author entered Michigan State University. The student body organization had three seats set aside for women. I ran for election to one of the seats — not pretending to be a woman — but protesting set asides and quotas. Although I did not win, I set a standard and garnered many votes.

DEAR READERS

The final installment of DEI – The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly will cover DEI – The Ugly.

Send your nomination of words that confuse policy to paulstam@stamlawfirm.com. This is the seventh installment in a series. The GOOD, The BAD, and The UGLY is broken down into three parts. Parts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI explore corruption, liberal/conservative/ progressive, legalize/decriminalize, nonprofit, bipartisan, democracy/republic, forgive, mandate, fascism, Marxist, traitor, treason, gaming, gambling, amnesty, politically motivated, fraction of, decimate, honor and privilege, profanity, cursing and swearing. For more information, see Parts I – VI under Articles for 2025 at www.paulstam.info.

Words Matter: The good, bad, and ugly of DEI. Part 1: The good

September 3rd, 2025 by Skip

This first installment explores the primary meanings which are themselves good. The second essay will explore how each has been used in a negative or even foolish way. The final essay demonstrates how these concepts can be twisted to be evil — hence the title.

‘The GOOD of DEI’ is the First Installment of this series

Diversity:

Diversity can be beneficial for innovation, creativity, and overall performance. It fosters a range of perspectives, enhances problem-solving capabilities, and more effective communication and collaboration.

Diversity in the Bible (ESV)

Revelation 7

⁹ Behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in hand.

Galatians 3

²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, . . . neither slave nor free, . . . nor male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Acts 17

²⁴The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, ²⁶made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the earth . . . ²⁸for
“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;
as even some of your own poets have said,
“‘We are indeed his offspring.’”

Isaiah 56

⁶“The foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
. . . and hold fast my covenant—
⁷these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
. . . my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.
⁸The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares,

“I will gather yet others to him
besides those already gathered.”

Equity:

The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Equality means providing the same to each one in the same position. Equity as often used means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments.

“Martin Luther King, Jr. described the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as containing ‘magnificent words…a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.’ Prior to 1964, however, slavery and segregation were enforced by state governments and, in many cases, by the federal government. Many who descend from victims of this system now face economic and personal hurdles that are the direct result of this legacy. We commit to expanding opportunity for those who face challenges due to past government restrictions on individual and economic freedom. We adamantly oppose racial discrimination in all its forms, either against or for any person or group of people.”

Section 8 from Freedom Conservatism Statement of Principles (2025)

Western principles of equity have a long history.

The Institutes of Justinian, 535 A.D.

Book I. Of Persons

I. Justice and Law.

JUSTICE is the constant and perpetual wish to render every one his due.

3. The maxims of law are these: to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.

LAS SIETE PARTIDAS, 1263 A.D.

LAW III.

What Justice Means, and How Many Precepts She Has.

The commands of justice and law are three in number; first, that every man should live honestly, so far as he himself is concerned; second, that he should not do wrong or injury to another; third, that he should give to each one that to which he is entitled.He who complies with these precepts performs his duty to God, to himself and to the men with whom he lives, and renders and maintains justice.

Equity in the Bible (ESV)

I Chronicles 18

¹⁴David reigned over all Israel and administered justice and equity to all his people.

Psalm 98

⁹[Messiah] comes to judge the earth.
He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity.

Isaiah 11

⁴ with righteousness [Messiah] shall judge the poor and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;

Inclusion:

“Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance.” — MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

Thesaurus.com

practice of including all groups: equity, nondiscrimination, respectfulness, sensitivity

Inclusion in the Bible (ESV)

James 2

¹Show no partiality . . . ²If a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, ³and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” ⁴have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? ⁵Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?

Luke 14

¹²“When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. ¹³But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind.

Leviticus 19

³³“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. ³⁴You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself. You were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

So, as you can see, diversity, equity, and inclusion have a long history in Western society and American culture and can be positive concepts. But, as we’ll see in the next two segments of this series, they are also frequently misused and abused in our modern context.

DEAR READERS

Send your nomination of words that confuse policy to paulstam@stamlawfirm.com. Parts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI explore corruption, liberal/conservative/ progressive, legalize/decriminalize, nonprofit, bipartisan, democracy/republic, forgive, mandate, fascism, Marxist, traitor, treason, gaming, gambling, amnesty, politically motivated, fraction of, decimate, honor and privilege. For more information, see Articles for 2025, www.paulstam.info.

What makes an illegal immigrant a criminal alien?

August 7th, 2025 by Skip

I have been confused about the details of immigration and deportation. What makes an “illegal alien” a “criminal illegal alien”? I recently read a helpful article in the Deseret News, entitled, “Is it a crime to be in the country illegally? We answer your questions.” It discusses many categories of those who are here illegally.

The first time an immigrant illegally enters the US, he or she has committed a misdemeanor. If he or she re-enters illegally after being once removed, that is a felony. Other categories, such as overstaying a visa, marriage fraud, expiration of temporary protected status, expiration of humanitarian parole, those awaiting resolution of claims for asylum, and DACA enrollees, have civil consequences but are not crimes.

Does the misdemeanor label make one a criminal? At what point does an immigrant become a criminal? Most Americans have committed misdemeanors — a minor violation of the criminal or regulatory law.

There are millions of illegal aliens who have committed a misdemeanor by illegally entering the country once. It is hard to live in this country without committing a misdemeanor. I have never been caught but have committed some. If you don’t think you have committed one, you don’t know the law very well. Our country is thick with misdemeanors.

Some have committed a felony by entering the country the second time after having been deported once. And then there are those who have murdered, raped, robbed, trafficked, or have been in MS-13 but have not yet been charged or convicted.

There are millions of non-citizens who are deportable but have committed no crime at all. Are we careful in our language? When we refer to criminal illegal aliens, let’s be sure our listeners or readers know whom we are talking about.

There are 1.1 million people from various backgrounds — Ukrainians, Cameroonians, Venezuelans, Haitians (pet eaters in Ohio — NOT), Afghans, Nepalis, Hondurans, Burmese, Ethiopians, Yemeni, Lebanese, South Sudanese, and Syrians — who are in the US now and came legally to the US, fleeing death, torture, or famine. They have been given Temporary Protected Status.

The administration is planning to remove and deport those back to the same dangers of death or torture from which they fled. Not all of them are deportable yet, but many soon will be. For example, the Washington Post states that in September 2025, temporary protection will end for most Hondurans and Nicaraguans who have been in the United States since 1999. They will have 60 days to leave.

Here are some other numbers from the Deseret News: Only about 5% of migrants have some kind of criminal charge that is not just for entering illegally (usually minor violations). And currently, there are about 5 million immigrants who were once authorized to stay, and are now in “limbo.” In 2013, DACA protected some 540,000 who came here as children and have renewed their status every two years. These have not committed a crime but have become deportable.

My bachelors in 1972 from Michigan State was in criminal justice. Based on that ancient learning on the prevalence of crime and based on many recent sources, my estimate is that of the 17 million or so “illegal aliens” in the United States today, at most 1% or 170,000 are what would be considered real criminals — yet ICE now has the funds to deport 1 million per year.

There is a mismatch between reality and rhetoric.

A Surprising Understanding of “Be Perfect”

July 18th, 2025 by Skip

Matthew 5 and Job 31 ESV
Wake County CLS – July 18, 2025

What does it really mean when Jesus says, “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”? This teaching explores the surprising depth of that command through the lens of Matthew 5 and Job 31. Far from demanding sinless perfection, Scripture paints a picture of wholeness, maturity, and integrity in both our actions and hearts. Below is the Scripture-based content and reflection presented during Wake County CLS on July 18, 2025.

Matthew 5

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law

18 Truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished …
20 I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Anger

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Lust

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Oaths

33 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’
34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

Retaliation

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Love Your Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 You therefore must be perfect*, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The word “perfect” here is téleios. It’s the same Greek word used in the Septuagint for Hebrew terms like tamim, often translated as “blameless.”

Psalm 15:2 — He who walks blamelessly (tamim) and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart.

“Perfect” (téleios) means complete, whole, entire, or mature. It describes someone who acts rightly outwardly and is rightly aligned inwardly. This is not sinless perfection but rather integrity across all areas of life. Noah and Job are both described this way in Genesis 6:9 and Job 1:1.

Job 31

Job’s Final Appeal

9 “If my heart has been enticed toward a woman, and I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, (Family)
10 then let my wife grind for another, and let others bow down on her.

13 “If I have rejected the cause of my manservant or my maidservant, when they brought a complaint against me, (Employer)
14 what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him?
15 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?

16 “If I have withheld anything that the poor desired, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail, (The Poor and Vulnerable)
17 or have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it
18 (for from my youth the fatherless grew up with me as with a father, and from my mother’s womb I guided the widow),
19 if I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing, or the needy without covering,
20 if his body has not blessed me, and if he was not warmed with the fleece of my sheep,
21 if I have raised my hand against the fatherless, (Justice to orphans) because I saw my help in the gate (court),
22 then let my shoulder blade fall from my shoulder, and let my arm be broken from its socket.

23 For I was in terror of calamity from God, and I could not have faced his majesty.

24 “If I have made gold my trust or called fine gold my confidence, (Greed)
25 if I have rejoiced because my wealth was abundant or because my hand had found much,

26 if I have looked at the sun when it shone, or the moon moving in splendor, (Idolatry)
27 and my heart has been secretly enticed, and my mouth has kissed my hand,
28 this also would be an iniquity to be punished by the judges, for I would have been false to God above.

29 “If I have rejoiced at the ruin of him who hated me, (Enemies) or exulted when evil overtook him
30 (I have not let my mouth sin by asking for his life with a curse),

31 if the men of my tent have not said, ‘Who is there that has not been filled with his meat?’
32 (the sojourner has not lodged in the street; (Travelers) I have opened my doors to the traveler),

35 Oh, that I had one to hear me! (Here is my signature! Let the Almighty answer me!) Oh, that I had the indictment written by my adversary!
36 Surely I would carry it on my shoulder; I would bind it on me as a crown;
37 I would give him an account of all my steps; like a prince I would approach him.

Words Matter, Part VI: Honor, Privilege

July 8th, 2025 by Skip

In 1799, Napoleon seized power from the French Directory, a five-member governing body, through a coup d’état known as the Coup of 18 Brumaire. Following this, Napoleon made himself Emperor Napoleon I, in 1804. Legend has it that during his coronation, he took the crown from Pope Pius VII and crowned himself, demonstrating his rejection of any authority other than his own.

Joséphine kneels before Napoléon during his coronation at Notre Dame. Behind him sits pope Pius VII. Image is public domain by Jacques-Louis David, 1805, Wiki Commons.

Napoleon didn’t understand the difference between honor and privilege.

HONOR:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Noun:

Faithfulness to high moral standards.
An asset that brings praise or renown.
Public acknowledgment or admiration for an achievement.
Something given in recognition of achievement.
Something granted as a special favor.

Verb:

To show appreciation, respect, or affection for (someone) with a public celebration.

Britannica Dictionary

Noun:

Respect that is given to someone who is admired.
Good reputation; good quality or character as judged by other people.
High moral standards of behavior.
A special opportunity to do something that makes you proud.
Something (such as a title or medal) that is given to a person as a sign of respect and admiration.
An admired person who is a source of pride and respect for the other members of a group, organization, etc.

Verb:

To regard or treat (someone) with respect and admiration.
To show admiration for (someone or something) in a public way.
To do what is required by (something, such as a promise or a contract).
To accept (something) as payment.
To repay (a debt).

PRIVILEGE

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Noun:

A right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; especially: such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or office.

Verb:

To grant a privilege to.
To accord a higher value or superior position to.

Dictionary.com:

Noun:

A benefit, immunity, etc., granted under certain conditions.
The advantages and immunities enjoyed by a small usually powerful group or class, especially to the disadvantage of others.
Any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of a country by its constitution.
The right of a lawyer to refuse to divulge information obtained in confidence from a client.
The rights and immunities enjoyed by members of most legislative bodies, such as freedom of speech, freedom from arrest in civil cases during a session, etc.

Verb:

To grant a privilege to.
To exempt (usually followed by “from”).
To authorize or license (something otherwise forbidden).

We see that too many of us claim honor for ourselves. An honor comes from the respect of our character by others.

Proverbs 27:2 ESV says:
“Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips.”

Let’s try to be more precise in our language. Test yourself with these sentences:

It is a great (honor/privilege) to address this assembly.

It is a great (honor/privilege) to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. It gives me the (honor/ privilege) to extend the application of my research to other nations.
I will let you have the (honor/privilege) of speaking first at the event.
The ability to travel the world is an (honor/privilege).
It was an absolute (honor/privilege) to be with you all today.
The gold medal is the highest (honor/privilege) you may receive at the Olympics.

DEAR READERS

Send your nomination of words that confuse policy to paulstam@stamlawfirm.com. This is the sixth installment in a series. Parts I, II, III, IV, and V explore corruption, liberal/conservative/ progressive, legalize/decriminalize, nonprofit, bipartisan, democracy/republic, forgive, mandate, fascism, Marxist, traitor, treason, gaming, gambling, amnesty, politically motivated, fraction of, and decimate. For more information, see Parts I – V under Articles for 2025,

Conference on 2025-2027 Budget

July 1st, 2025 by Skip

The following is the full text of a letter written by Paul Stam to several members of the North Carolina General Assembly. The letter was addressed to State Representatives Donny Lambeth, Dean Arp, Larry Strickland, Kyle Hall, Erin Paré, Hugh Blackwell, and William Brisson, as well as State Senators Brent Jackson, Ralph Hise, and Michael Lee. It addresses several important topics currently under consideration by the legislature and is shared here in full for public awareness and transparency.

Personal Income Tax

John Hood wrote a wonderful article entitled “Put your tax cards on the table.” I hope you will read it. I see three problems with the Senate position on triggers.

First, the triggers were not adjusted for inflation or for an increase in the population.

Those adjustments are normal for a Tabor calculation on spending. Do you remember all of the arguments on “bracket creep” when we had different rates for income taxation? The effect then of inflation was to increase the rate of taxation. A single rate is good. The effect of not adjusting the triggers for inflation and population is to illogically reduce tax rates long before anyone anticipated (or should have) the effect. And we know that the Federal government will be sending less money to North Carolina.

Second, as pointed out by John Hood, the effect of this premature reduction in income tax rates is to fill the unmet serious needs of state government with excise taxes, gambling, alcohol, tobacco and marijuana taxes, (and why not taxes on prostitution). Regardless of your moral position on these, they violate basic principles of tax policy such as stability and transparency.

Each are highly regressive. “Don’t tax me, don’t tax thee, tax the fellow behind the tree.”

Senator Jerry Tillman said it another way, “I don’t play the lottery but if people are too stupid and do so, let’s use their money for a good cause.”

Third, the Senate position is based upon an economic and logical fallacy. When we reduced personal income tax in 2011-2013 from almost 8% down to 6%, more revenue came in. Why? We were the highest income tax rate amongst our neighbors and competitors, and these high rates dragged down economic growth. When the income tax rate was reduced from 6% down to 4.5%, more revenue came in for similar reasons. But it does not follow at all that reducing income tax rates further down to 3.5% or 2% will produce more revenue.

Think about it. If I am overweight at 290 and lose 30 pounds I am healthier. If I lose another 10 I am in fighting trim. But if I lose another 20 pounds I might be dead or dying.

Corporate Income Tax

I applaud the Senate and the House for continuing to reduce corporate income tax to zero. That is a small part of our revenue. It is a double tax on the same income and highly regressive. By putting in law that it goes to zero, corporations can move here with confidence that by the time they start making money that irrational double tax will not be one to consider in their proforma.

Tips and Tax Holiday

I agree with the Senate position on taxes on tips and the resurrected Sales Tax Holiday.

These make no sense. There is no reason not to tax tips differently than other taxes on income. A Sales Tax Holiday is just a gimmick. The Big Beautiful Bill provision on tips is getting tinier and tinier. If it stays in people will just classify more of their income as tips rather than as a bonus or other ordinary income.

NC Innovations

NC Innovation was a terrible idea from the start, corporate welfare run amok. You know all the arguments. The House position is better. I will suggest where that money could go.

Helene

Both House and Senate want to top the Rainy Day Fund back up to $4.5 billion. There will be additional disasters in the years to come but I don’t think you should budget as if you were to have another 500-year flood in the next two years. It would be better to get that fund up to $3.5 billion and then build it up to $4.5 billion in the 27-29 biennium. I would spend the money clawed back from NC Innovation for another $500 million for Helene relief. The President claimed before his election that FEMA under Biden was doing a terrible job. FEMA under Trump is doing a miserable job. The West needs more money soon.

Masters Pay

I agree with the Senate on this. I spent 16 years on the Education committee. All the evidence I saw was that Masters Pay did not make any difference in the effectiveness of teachers. If it were in a field that requires a master’s degree, it might be different. Trim that item down so that it only applies, for example, to physics or chemistry teachers. General education or liberal arts Masters Pay is a waste of money.

I would appreciate your feedback.

Cordially,

Paul Stam

Words Matter, Part V: Politically Motivated, A Fraction Of, Decimate

June 18th, 2025 by Skip

Do we talk past each other because we use different language, even when we all use English? The same sound may have four different meanings in Chinese — depending on the tone of voice. In English a “sound” may have different meanings, depending on the context or the spelling. We should use words in ways that are understandable and fair.

Politically motivated

done for political reasons: a politically motivated decision

AI Overview

Here are some synonyms for “politically motivated,” depending on the specific nuances conveyed:

Driven by political agenda/aims/goals
Politically inspired
Politically influenced
Motivated by political considerations
Partisan
Ideological

“Politically motivated” is overused for two reasons: The first is that a political motivation is perfectly acceptable in many situations. A district attorney wants to crack down on drunk driving. She then prioritizes trials and strict sentencing in these cases that might help her to win the next election.

On the other hand, if an investigator or prosecutor acts because the subject is affiliated with a different political party and she would not have acted in a similar situation against a member of her own political party, that would be wrong.

The second reason is that the derogatory term, “politically motivated,” is thrown around without any evidence but rather supposition. We should not assume motivation without actual evidence.

A career prosecutor is in the section assigned to investigate government corruption. Almost by definition most of the “suspects” will be affiliated with a political party. But is the investigation and/or prosecution “politically motivated?”

Was US Sen. Bob Menendez prosecuted twice for corruption because he is a Democrat or because he is a crook Representative Matt Gaetz was investigated by the FBI under both President Biden and President Trump (in his first term). Was his investigation motivated because he is a Republican or because he is a criminal?

A fraction of

at a fraction of something
for a much lower price than something else, or in a much smaller size, amount, etc. than something else:

They can produce it at a fraction of the cost of traditional methods.

They sell off last year’s designs at a fraction of the price you’d pay in one of the big retailers.

Many lower altitude ski resorts were operating at a fraction of their capacity.

AI Overview (I am quoting AI on this because it looks at how most use this term)

A “fraction” in everyday language:

Definition: Refers to a small amount or a tiny part of something.
Examples: “She hesitated for a fraction of a second” (meaning a very short time).” The company’s computers only represent a fraction of the market” (meaning a small part of the market). “I got these shoes at a fraction of the original price” (meaning much cheaper).

But what is a fraction? 99/100 is a fraction. 3/4 is a fraction. 1/9 is a fraction. Even 5/4 is a fraction. Why should marketers use “a fraction of” to exaggerate the saving. This usage is common among so many that I wonder how they passed 4^th grade arithmetic. I recommend never using the term unless you quantify the fraction or use something like “a very small fraction of,” “about half,” or “a large fraction of.”

Decimate

to select by lot and kill every tenth man of: decimate a regiment
to exact a tax of 10 percent from: poor as a decimated Cavalier —John Dryden
a. to reduce drastically especially in number: cholera decimated the population;

Kamieniecki’s return comes at a crucial time for a pitching staff that has been

decimated by injuries. —Jason Diamos

b.to cause great destruction or harm to: firebombs decimated the city;

an industry decimated by recession

There is quite a bit of difference between 1/10 and 9/10. “Decimate” should not be used at all unless clarified by an actual fraction or an understandable qualification such as “a great majority of” or “a significant minority” or similar terms.

DEAR READERS

Send your nomination of words that confuse policy to paulstam@stamlawfirm.com. This is the fifth installment in a series. Parts I, II, III and IV explore corruption, liberal/conservative/ progressive, legalize/decriminalize, nonprofit, bipartisan, democracy/republic, forgive, mandate, fascism, Marxist, traitor, treason, faming, gambling and amnesty.

Words Matter, Part IV: Treason, Gaming, Amnesty

May 9th, 2025 by Skip

The same sound may have four different meanings in Chinese — depending on the tone of voice. In English a “sound” may have different meanings, depending on the context or the spelling. We should use words in ways that are understandable and fair. Do we talk past each other because we use different language, even when we all use English?

Traitor

According to Merriam-Webster:

one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty
one who commits treason

According to the Cambridge Dictionary:

a person who gives away or sells secrets of his or her country, or someone who is not loyal to particular beliefs or friends

Treason

According to Merriam-Webster, treason is:

the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family
the betrayal of trust

“U.S. Constitution, Article. III. Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

You can see how misunderstandings can erupt. Most Americans have only actually read or heard the constitutional definition of treason. It is quite narrow but potentially can carry a death sentence. Other Americans use the term’s more expansive meaning.

Wives of English kings committed adultery could be charged with treason and beheaded after a show trial. No wonder the founding fathers and mothers wanted a narrower legal definition. The broader definition of “traitor” includes traitor to one’s own beliefs, but not a traitor to the beliefs of others.

Loyalty runs both ways. In the English feudal system, one had to be loyal to the king and various aristocrats. But the superior (liege lord) had a duty of protection to those from whom loyalty was expected.

Gaming

According to Merriam-Webster, gaming is:

the practice or activity of playing games for stakes : gambling
the practice or activity of playing games (such as board games, card games, or video games)

Gambling

According to Merriam-Webster, gambling is:

the practice or activity of betting : the practice of risking money or other stakes in a game or bet

And Cornell Law Dictionary says:

Gambling is when a person bets or risks something of value (like money) based on a chance outcome that is at least partially out of their control or influence, with the understanding that they will either gain increased value or lose their original value determined by the specific outcome. Common forms of gambling include lotteries, sports betting, and casino games – as well as other table games. Gambling is often subject to state legislation that limits the means and types of gambling and who and when and where gambling can take place, and otherwise regulates the activity.

Gamblers like to call their activity “gaming.” The term “gaming” also can encompass chess, Go, Monopoly or even “Chutes & Ladders” where the prize is bragging rights, fun, play money, or a nominal penny. Modern gambling, such as sports betting or video poker, is intentionally designed with the help of neuropsychiatrists to be addictive and to take all your money over repetitive bets.

“Gambling” should never be called “gaming” unless one intends to deceive.

Amnesty

According to Merriam-Webster, amnesty is:

the act of an authority (such as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals

While Cornell Law Dictionary defines amnesty as:

To grant amnesty is to grant a pardon to those who have committed an offense . Under immigration law , amnesty is a governmental pardon for a person or group of persons who violated policies related to immigration. Immigration amnesty would include the government forgiving individuals for using forged/false documentation to gain employment in the U.S. and to remain in the country, and would allow illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrant aliens to gain permanent residency in the United States.

For example, through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 , the U.S. government provided amnesty for all undocumented aliens present in the country who had arrived prior to January 1, 1982.

[Last reviewed in January of 2025 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

And Cambridge Dictionary defines it as:

a decision by a government that allows political prisoners to go free
a fixed period of time during which people are not punished for committing a particular crime

“President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to draft evaders in 1977. Specifically, on January 21, 1977, he issued Proclamation 4483, which granted pardons for violations of the Selective Service Act related to the Vietnam War. This pardon covered those who evaded the draft between August 4, 1964, and March 28, 1973.” (AI summary)

The actual meaning of amnesty does not imply the one pardoned has to pay fines, penalties, or suffer further detention or delay. The word is carelessly used to apply it to proposed conditions for naturalization.

DEAR READERS

Send your nomination of words that confuse policy to paulstam@stamlawfirm.com. This is the fourth installment in a series. Parts I, II, and III explore corruption, liberal/conservative/ progressive, legalize/decriminalize, nonprofit, bipartisan, democracy/republic, forgive, mandate, fascism, and marxist.

What Process is Due to Whom, When, Why?

May 1st, 2025 by Skip

In the days of Robin Hood, Friar Tuck, Maid Marian, and the Sheriff of Nottingham, there was a very bad English King. He took charge while his brother was off to the Crusades. So naturally the question came up:

WHAT PROCESS IS DUE TO WHOM, WHEN, WHY?

Magna Carta (1215 AD) was a deal between the nobility and King John. He was the worst ever English king. He was in deep trouble. He barely kept his crown, and perhaps his life, by making 63 promises to the Barons at Runnymede.

Rights owed by government to everyone (except slaves)

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

Why do we care what happened 810 years ago? In 1776 William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England was the principle law book for colonial thinkers and lawyers. Blackstone and the revolutionaries used Magna Carta to explain the rights of the English everywhere and then used it against King George III.

It is no accident that this language appears as the most ancient part (1776) of the North Carolina Declaration of Rights. Article I Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution now reads: “No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.”

Article I Section 21 states that: “Every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the restraint if unlawful, and that remedy shall not be denied or delayed. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.”

The writ of habeas corpus is an ancient, but also current, order from a judge to an executive officer saying, “show and tell me why you have Mr. X in custody.”

The authors of our Constitution knew the difference between “citizen” and “person.”

Article I Section 5 reads: “Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.”

Back to Magna Carta.

Rights owed by government to everyone

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Due Process for enemy alien merchants even in time of war

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

When is due process owed to any man?

(52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgment of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgment of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§61). In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgment of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard (the Lionheart), and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.

Magna Carta addresses separation of powers. North Carolina was the first state to place that principle of separation of powers in its constitution, on instruction from the inhabitants of Orange County to the Provincial Assembly in 1776 (Bayard v Singleton (1787)). What is the remedy for usurpation of power by a Chief Executive like King John? Even King John was entitled to Due Process. But his immunity was limited to his own person and the person of the queen and his children. He had to swear to God and give security to keep his promises.

(61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security: The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter. If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us. Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command. If one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were. In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear. The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power. We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

Magna Carta suggested a unique consequence. This requires a paraphrase:

“If we, or our Attorney General, Pam Bondi, offend in any respect against any man, and offense is made known to the Senate, they shall come to us or to the Attorney General – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or the Attorney General make no redress within 40 days the Senate may then subpoena every piece of paper in the White House with the support of the Congress and mainstream media, by seizing the White House, Camp David, Air Force One, and anything else, except only our own body and that of Melania and Barron, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. And having secured that redress the Senate may then resume its normal obedience to us.”

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776

The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws (as described by Blackstone) in a neighbouring Province (Canada), establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies.

Magna Carta and Blackstone inspired much of the individual rights in:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1787)

Article I.

Section. 9. – clause 2. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Article. III.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution the Laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.

BILL OF RIGHTS (1791)

Amendment VI.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed: which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment IX. (1791)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (As delineated at length by Blackstone)

Amendment XIV. (1868)

different rights for citizens and other persons

Section 1. (second sentence) No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What process is due depends on the circumstances. I have heard it said that if we had to give “due process” to ten or twenty million of those illegally here, it would be impossible to have so many “trials.” Due Process does not frequently require a trial – much less a jury trial. If it did, our justice system, both criminal and civil, would collapse.

What due process always requires is sufficient and timely notice and specificity of whatever the charge is, so that the person entitled to due process has a meaningful opportunity to be heard, so that an unbiased decision maker can act properly.

How Many Impossible Things Can You Believe Before Breakfast?

April 21st, 2025 by Skip

Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said. ‘One can’t believe impossible things.’

I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast

– Lewis Carroll

King Canute of England tried to stop the tides

In Huntingdon’s account, Canute set his throne by the seashore and commanded the incoming tide to halt and not to wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.'” He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”.

Later historians repeated the story, with most of them adjusting it to have Canute more clearly aware that the tides would not obey him and staging the scene to rebuke the flattery of his courtiers.

The Indiana House decreed the value of ? as 3.2

Bill 246 found its way to the Committee on Education, which approved it and sent it to the General Assembly for a vote. It passed on February 6, 1897. The bill nearly passed, but the senators decided on Feb. 12 to indefinitely postpone the vote.”

Even today we have science deniers who cause real damage. Vitamin A will prevent infection by measles. The measles vaccine is dangerous, too dangerous to use. That is nuts. These ideas can get people killed or very sick.

Human Embryos Are Not Human Beings

Recently, some members of the NC House and Senate sponsored House Bill 473 and its Senate companion that says:

§ 90-21.164. Fertilized human egg or human embryo not a human being.

A fertilized human egg or human embryo that exists in any form outside of the uterus of a human body shall not, under any circumstance, be considered an unborn fetus, an unborn child, a minor child, a natural person, or any other term that connotes a human being for any purpose under State law.

Abortionists would roll their eyes at that. I have personally debated two abortionists and deposed two others under oath. All four agreed that who they were “terminating” was a living human being.

These NC legislators think that if the human embryo is outside the uterus that it has changed its nature. It is a “being” or it wouldn’t exist. And it is “human” or there would be no point to implanting it in a woman’s uterus.

But an embryo is so tiny!! Consider this photograph of a human embryo eight days after fertilization, the same size, shape and appearance of the typical embryo that is conceived in a test tube outside the uterus, i.e. IVF. That is the exact stage of development of a particular unborn child whom Elizabeth, the cousin of Mary, called “my Lord” when John the Baptist kicked her when she was in her sixth month of pregnancy. And he already had a famous name when he was conceived. Can you guess his name?

⁴¹When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, ⁴²and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! ⁴³And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord (sis) should come to me? ⁴⁴For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. ⁴⁵And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” Luke 1 ESV

Dr. Seuss nailed it in Horton Hears a Who, “A person’s a person no matter how small.”

Words Matter, Part III: Forgive, Mandate, Fascism, Marxism

March 27th, 2025 by Skip

We often talk past each other because we use different language, even if we all use English. In Chinese the same sounds may have at least four different meanings — depending on the tone of voice. In English a “sound” may have different meanings, depending on the context or the spelling. Pundits and politicians should use words in ways that are understandable and fair.

Forgive

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : forgive one’s enemies
a. to give up resentment of or claim to requital for forgive an insult.
b. to grant relief from payment of forgive a debt.

Google Dictionary:

stop feeling angry or resentful toward someone for (an offense, flaw, or mistake).

“he was not a man who found it easy to forgive and forget“

cancel (a debt).

“he proposed that their debts should be forgiven”

used in polite expressions as a request to excuse or regard indulgently one’s foibles, ignorance, or impoliteness.

“you will have to forgive my suspicious mind”

But who can forgive? Only the person offended or the person or institution to whom a monetary debt is owed. Jesus taught about a man who was forgiven much but would not forgive.

Matthew 18:23-30 ESV

²³“A king wished to settle accounts with his servants. ²⁴When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. ²⁵Since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. ²⁶The servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ ²⁷Out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. ²⁸When that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ ²⁹His fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ ³⁰He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt.”

The United States has a debt of $37 trillion. Is it “forgiveness” if a president refuses to collect student loans so that our great grandchildren are left holding the bag of massive debt? Hyper inflation is the only way that nations have found to make the burden of massive debt disappear.

Mandate

Google Dictionary:

noun: mandate

1. an official order or commission to do something.

“a mandate to seek the release of political prisoners”

a commission by which a party is entrusted to perform a service, especially without payment and with indemnity against loss by that party.
an order from an appellate court to a lower court to take a specific action.
a written authority enabling someone to carry out transactions on another’s bank account.

2. the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election . . .

verb: mandate

1. give (someone) authority to act in a certain way.

“other colleges have mandated coed fraternities”

require (something) to be done.

“the government began mandating better car safety”

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

mandate: noun

an authoritative command

especially a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one

an authorization to act given to a representative

mandate: verb

to officially require (something)

make (something) mandatory: a law mandating recycling

also : to direct or require (someone) to do something

a commission mandated to investigate corruption

In political terms “mandate” is often used in Europe for the pre-election published position of a political party (or coalition of parties) to win an election. It is obligated to try to fulfill that pledge. These “mandates” are much shorter and more specific than our voluminous “platforms.”

It is now used loosely to mean the extemporaneous or even contradictory thoughts of a single candidate who wins an election, in order to justify actions by the entire party.

Fascism

American Heritage Dictionary:;

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.

Italy’s government under Mussolini (1925-1943 as dictator) had antecedents in history. Its features are the primary reference for the term. It is now used loosely as a term of reproach if one or more of these features are trending with the illogical assumption that those reproached intend to move into full fascist mode.

Marxism

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

The political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx

especially : a theory and practice of socialism, including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.

Marxist-Leninst atheism

Marxist–Leninist atheism, also known as Marxist–Leninist scientific atheism, is the antireligious element of Marxism–Leninism. Based upon a dialectical-materialist understanding of humanity’s place in nature, Marxist–Leninist atheism proposes that religion is the opium of the people; thus, Marxism–Leninism advocates atheism, rather than religious belief.

“Marxist” is now used loosely as a term of reproach for those with big government plans. Personally I never understood Marx, Lenin, or Engels. I have read Mao’s Little Red Book. China’s early years — say from 1949-1976 were perhaps the only significant society which actually tried Marxism. Perhaps as many as 40,000,000 Chinese died of starvation, disease, and torture as a direct result. With lesser degrees of Marxist purity, the USSR, Mongolia, North Korea, and Cuba tried the model.

Historically Marxists (international socialists) and fascists (national socialists) violently opposed each other. Their actual programs were similar. The “far left” and “far right” have much in common.

DEAR READERS

Send your nomination of words that confuse policy to paulstam@stamlawfirm.com. This is the third installment in a series. Part I and Part II explore corruption, liberal/ conservative/progressive, legalize/decriminalize, non profit, bipartisan and democracy/republic.

Words Matter, Part II: Nonprofit, Bipartisan, Democracy, Republic

February 28th, 2025 by Skip

In Chinese the same “word” may have four different meanings – depending on the tone of voice. In English a “sound” may have different meanings, depending on the context or the spelling. Pundits, and politicians should use words in ways that are understandable and fair. We often talk past each other because we use different language even if we all speak or write English.

Nonprofit or Not for Profit

Nonprofit corporation, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) (2009)
“nonprofit corporation. (1908) A corporation organized for some purpose other than making a profit, and usu[ally] afforded special tax treatment. – Also termed not-for-profit corporation.”

Nonprofit, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary (2024)
not conducted or maintained for the purpose of making a profit
a nonprofit research center

These terms are often meant to suggest that the source of the information is benevolent, neutral, unbiased, not motivated by the love of money and, at the least, thrifty. However, “nonprofit” means only that there are no stockholder dividends after all the salaries and other expenses are paid.

Nonprofits all over ideologically. They may pay their top staff millions of dollars in salary and still be “nonprofits.” The news media and honest pundits should not use “nonprofit” at all unless the question is whether an organization is actually entitled to that tax status.

Bipartisan

How often have you seen the term “bipartisan” used with respect to legislation that the writer approves? What does it mean?

Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary (2024)
of, relating to, or involving members of two parties
a bipartisan commission
specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise
between two major political parties
bipartisan support for the bill

The significance of bipartisanship depends . . . In the North Carolina House of Representatives, there are 120 members. When all are present, 61 is a majority and 72 is the number of votes needed to override a governor’s veto. Currently, there are 71 Republicans and 49 Democrats.

When all are present and voting, and assuming a veto override is necessary, is a vote “bipartisan” when?

The bill receives 72 Republican votes and 3 Democrat votes.
The bill receives 69 Republican votes and 3 Democrat votes.
The bill receives 60 Republican votes and 12 Democrat votes.
The bill receives 32 Republican votes and 40 Democrat votes, or 40 Republican votes and 32 Democrat votes.

Only the situations in 3. and 4. deserve the term “bipartisan.” A skilled reporter would also look at the sponsorship of a bill, not only amongst the 3 or 4 primary sponsors. Situations 1. and 2. may include three stray votes obtained by coercion of or logrolling with a retiring member.

A clearly bipartisan committee or commission would consist of membership proportional by party with the majority given the benefit of irregular fractions. But if nonmembers from the majority, “floaters”, can run in to vote, then the term bipartisan is misleading.

Democracy or a Republic?

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands . . .”

Thomas Jefferson was the first President elected for the Democratic-Republican party.

Is the United States a Republic with some features of democracy? Or is it a Democracy with the central feature of a Republic – NO Monarchy, whether hereditary or not, and no one is above the law? Dictionary definitions are not always precise.

Democracy

https://thelawdictionary.org/democracy/#:~:text=Democracy,a%20%E2%80%9Crepresentative%20democracy.%E2%80%9D

That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens; as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. According to the theory of a pure democracy, every citizen should participate directly in the business of governing, and the legislative assembly should comprise the whole people. But the ultimate lodgment of the sovereignty being the distinguishing feature, the introduction of the representative system does not remove a government from this type. However, a government of the latter kind is sometimes specifically described as a “representative democracy.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy#:~:text=1,the%20United%20Kingdom

government by the people : rule of the majority: such as
a. a form of government in which the people elect representatives to make decisions,
policies, laws, etc. according to law
Free and fair elections are a hallmark of American democracy.—CISA.gov
a country, state, etc. whose form of government is democracy : a political unit that has
a democratic government
Western democracies
a parliamentary democracy such as Canada or the United Kingdom

There is another idea of “Democracy” sung by Judy Collins and written by Leonard Cohen. It is not intended as a definition. Too many Americans equate their opinion of what a good life would be as Democracy.

Republic

https://thelawdictionary.org/republic/#:~:text=Republic,Co.%20Litt.%20303.

A commonwealth; a form of government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the general body of citizens, and in which the executive power is lodged in officers chosen by and representing the people, and holding office for a limited period, or at most during good behavior or at the pleasure of the people, and in which the legislative power may be (and in modern republics is) intrusted to a representative assembly. See Federalist, No. 39; Republic of Mexico v. De Arangoiz, 5 Duer (N. Y.) 636; State v. Harris, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 599. In a wider sense, the state, the common weal, the whole organized political community, without reference to tle form of government; as in the maxim interest reipulliear ut sit finis litium. Co. Litt. 303.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republican#h2

a government in which the power belongs to a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by the leaders and representatives elected by those citizens to govern according to law
a country, state, or territory having a republican government
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands…—Francis Bellamy
The United States, which the eighteenth-century American elite sought to refashion as a new Roman Republic…—Michael Lind
Merriam-Webster provides a 3rd definition of republic which is a corruption of the term.
a country, state, or territory that is headed by someone other than a hereditary monarch but whose citizens do not hold real power
the former Soviet republics

NOTE: In modern times, this sense is used in the names of various countries whose forms of government vary greatly and include dictatorships and totalitarian regimes.

Many conservatives will fervently say “America is a Republic – not a democracy.” We have a republic “if we can keep it,” as Ben Franklin said.” Thanks to George Washington, we have kept it.

Our republic has many democratic features – we choose our leaders by elections by democratic means. Legislations requires a majority or super majority vote. But not entirely – the composition of the U.S. Senate is decidedly non-democratic – two members represent Delaware and two for Texas.

Liberals call everything they dislike an attack on “democracy.” What they might mean is that some of what they dislike is an attack on the republican form of government – not an attack on “democracy. ”

A curious claim of the left (and uninformed others) is the current dispute over the 2024 N.C. Supreme Court election. Judge Griffin has filed protests – asking whether about 5,000 votes cast were countable. He has not claimed that he should win even if he received fewer countable votes than his opponent. He is not attacking democracy.

DEAR READERS

Send your nomination of words that confuse policy to paulstam@stamlawfirm.com. This is the second installment in a series. Read Part I which explores corruption, liberal / conservative / progressive, and legalize / discriminalization.

The author spent 16 years in the NC House, the last ten as minority leader, majority leader and then Speaker pro tem.

Words Matter, Part I: Corruption, Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Legalize, Decriminalize

February 7th, 2025 by Skip

In Chinese the same “word” may have four different meanings – depending on the tone of voice. In English a “sound” may have different meanings, depending on the context or the spelling.

Fair-minded reporters, pundits, and politicians should use words and phrases in ways that are understandable and fair. We often talk past each other because we use different language even if we all speak or write English.

Corruption

Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.) (2009)

“Depravity, perversion, or taint; an impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle; esp., the impairment of a public official’s duties by bribery.”
- “The word ‘corruption’ indicates impurity of debasement and when found in the criminal law it means depravity or gross impropriety.”
“The act of doing something with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others; a fiduciary’s or official’s use of a station or office to procure some benefit either personally or for someone else, contrary to the rights of others.”

Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary (2024)

dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : depravity
inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery)
- the corruption of government officials
a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
- the corruption of a text
- the corruption of computer files
decay, decomposition
- the corruption of a carcass

These are very different meanings of the word “corruption.” The most obvious meaning includes bribery, whether for money or another benefit to an official to do (or not) something. Other meanings imply someone or something is bad or wrong, e.g., the corruption of a carcass or corruption of computer files.

When an influencer states that an official or system is “corrupt,” the hearer or reader does not know what is being said. She may think she knows. That might be totally different than what was intended by the influencer. We often hear that someone is corrupt when the speaker or writer might have meant that the person is bad, inefficient or useless.

Liberal, Conservative, Progressive

These terms shift meaning with the times.

Liberal

Liberal, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.) (2009)

liberal, adj.

(Of a condition, state, opinion) not restricted; expansive; tolerant
- liberal policy
(Of a person or entity) opposed to conservatism; advocating expansive freedoms and individual expression
- liberal policy
(Of an interpretation, construction) not strict or literal; loose
- a liberal reading of the statue

Liberal, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary (2024)

a : inclined to be open to ideas and ways of behaving that are not conventional or traditional : broad-minded, tolerant
- My father is more liberal and loving than twenty fathers combined . . .
- Europeans generally have more liberal attitudes toward sex than Americans . . .
b : of, relating to, or favoring a philosophy of liberalism. . . .especially political liberalism and often also social liberalism
- a liberal Democrat in a family of conservative Republicans pushing for liberal reforms
c : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism
- the Liberal Party of Canada
- the Liberal Party of New York
relating to economic liberalism
- They were tethered to classically liberal dogmas on the primacy of the market

Conservative

Conservative (adj.), Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary (2024)

a : of, relating to, or favoring a philosophy of conservatism, especially political conservatism . . . and … social conservatism
- a conservative newspaper columnist
- a liberal Democrat who married a conservative Republican conservative elements opposed to the reforms
b : . . . a political party professing the principles of conservatism: or . . . a country’s Conservative party
- the Conservative Party of Canada
a : tending or inclined to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional
- Hunters also tend to be conservative—not just politically, but skeptical of change . . .
b : marked by moderation or caution
- One conservative estimate of the number of butterflies at a single site in Mexico was 14.25 million.
c : a person who adheres to traditional methods or views
- a conservative in dress and manner

Progressive

Progressive (n.), Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary (2024)

someone who is progressive: such as
- an adherent or advocate of the philosophy of political progressivism: someone who advocates for or values the advancement of the public good through government action
- a member of a Progressive political party
a person who favors a progressive educational theory or doctrine

You often cannot tell what is meant. Ronald Reagan was the iconic conservative of the 1980s. He would have been called a liberal 150 years earlier. His favorite read was National Review, founded by Bill Buckley in the 1950’s. It became the standard conservative newsmagazine in the 60’s. The Republican National Committee Platform of 2024 would not have been recognized as conservative by Ronald Reagan or Bill Buckley.

Which principles are conserved? Are isolationism and protectionism conservative, liberal or what? For liberals and progressives is “Wokeism” tolerant, expanding individual freedom and expression, or just the opposite?

The press often uses “far right” or “far left” as if political positions are on a linear spectrum. The “far left” and the “far right” have a lot more in common than they have with those who used to be labeled “conservative” or “liberal.”

Legalize v. Decriminalize

Legalize

Legalize, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.) (2009)
legalize, vb.
To make lawful; to authorize or justify by legal sanction

Legalize, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary (2024)
To make legal
especially : to give legal validity or sanction to

Decriminalize

Decriminalization, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) (2009)
decriminalization, n. (1945) The legislative act or process of legalizing an illegal act many doctors seek the decriminalization of euthanasia.

Decriminalize (v.), Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary (2024)
to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of
especially : to repeal a strict ban on while keeping under some form of regulation
decriminalize the possession of marijuana

The law clearly recognizes a distinction. The vast majority of our law is civil, not criminal. Most influencers and most voters fail to make the distinction. A criminal proceeding requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a unanimous jury to determine guilt. The criminal law is not very effective in dealing with the vast majority of conflicts.

It is not only voters who are confused. We have a Supreme Court Justice who won by 734 votes out of 5.5 million votes cast. She and her acolytes spent millions preying upon the inability of voters to make this distinction. https://paulstam.info/how-justice-allison-riggs-took-the-lead-in-the-vote-count/

DEAR READERS

SEND your nomination of words that confuse policy to paulstam@stamlawfirm.com.

The author spent 16 years in the NC House, the last ten as minority leader, majority leader and then Speaker pro tem.

How Justice Allison Riggs took the lead in the vote count

January 8th, 2025 by Skip

We are waiting for protests to be determined on the State Supreme Court election. It is time to remind ourselves how Justice Riggs ran 2% ahead of the three statewide Court of Appeals Democratic candidates who lost. Justice Riggs also ran ahead of Justice Sam Ervin IV and Judge Lucy Inman in 2022. They also lost while running TV ads proclaiming their allegiance to abortion.

Justice Allison Riggs, the NC Democrat Party, the super PACs, Family First and Justice Project Action spent millions more than her opponent. She and they filled my mailbox and texts with an absurd analysis of the position of her opponent in the election. She claimed that Judge Jefferson Griffin is against contraception, IVF, and abortion with no exceptions at all.

He has not taken any of these positions. What is behind this?

In a civil case, Judge Griffin concurred in an opinion which stated that human life begins at conception. In re E.D.-A. (2023). One of the most basic distinctions in North Carolina law is that the treatment of civil cases and criminal cases are very different. G.S. 1-4.5 and 6. Justice Riggs missed that class.

In 1859, the American Medical Association unanimously adopted a resolution “condemning abortion at every period of gestation, except as necessary to preserve the life of mother or child”. The stated reason was the increasing frequency “of such unwarrantable destruction of human life.” The common law, as of 1776, made abortion a crime from conception. “The moment the womb is instinct with embryo life and gestation has begun . . .” the crime may be committed, State v. Slagle (1880) and G.S. 4-1.

These “facts of life” have been well known for two centuries. The very first two sentences of The Developing Human – Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd ed 1977) by Keith Moore states:

No new science has changed that science in the last 48 years. Even after Roe v Wade (1973) most abortionists admit that after conception the embryo and fetus are living human beings. I have publicly debated two abortionists and deposed two others under oath. They said, of course, they are dealing with a living human being.

Only politicians like Justice Allison Riggs and the compliant press deny this obvious fact of life.

Law caught up with science in the 19^th century. By 1868, the vast majority of States criminalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health (2022) Many of the state court decisions from the mid to late 19^th through the early 20^th century made the point that these protective laws were motivated by a sincere belief, based on science, that abortion kills a human being. 13 of the Territories criminalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy between 1850 (Hawaii) and 1919 (New Mexico). By the end of the 1950s, all but four States and the District of Columbia criminalized the abortionists, unless performed to save or preserve the life of the mother.

How does NC law treat unborn children in civil cases?

The law of North Carolina was and is that the property of one dying without a will immediately vests in an unborn child. In 1823, a NC statute clarified: “[n]o inheritance shall descend to any person, unless such person shall be in life at the death of the person last seized, or shall be born within ten months after the death of the person last seized.” Ten lunar months are 280 days. By 1839 a child, once conceived, could take property under a will to “children.” In 1854 NC statutes clarified that “[a]n infant unborn . . . shall be deemed a person capable of taking by deed as if he were born.”

Until Roe v Wade (1973), for all purposes beneficial to her, the preborn child was protected by the civil law and the criminal law of almost all of the nation. Law and biology were consistent and considered the child in the womb to be within the protection of law from conception. Since 1967, North Carolina law has allowed the abortion of these living human beings by doctors –currently up to the 12th week of pregnancy. No criminal penalties are attached.

Justice Riggs used her immense financial advantage and disregard of the difference between civil law and criminal law to get hired for another 8 years as one of the state’s top jurists.

Approximately 2% of the voters bought her analysis. Her opponent did not have the funds to rebut this late and bogus attack. Governor Josh Stein was able to pour millions of dollars into down-ballot races, and this caused several Democrat candidates to squeak to victory.

Voters and influencers should think carefully about this when selecting primary candidates who are bound to implode.

Documents: Allison Riggs-How she took the lead in the vote count

2024 Elections – State and National

January 2nd, 2025 by Skip

Here is the big picture at the local, state, and national level. For 2020 and 2022, I provided a similar scorecard.

Local level. Before the election, Republicans controlled 67 county commissions. The GOP now controls 71 county commissions. Republicans flipped Martin, Perquimans, Scotland, and Watauga counties. Democrats control 24 counties, five have no majority. Democrats control commissions with greater county populations, so the population of counties controlled by the parties is about 50/50.

After the Election of 2022, there were 54 GOP and 45 Democrat Clerks of Court. After the Election of 2022, there were 64 GOP and 35 Democrat Sheriffs and one unaffiliated. There were no elections for Sheriff or Clerk in 2024.

There were 170 school board races in districts with partisan elections. Republicans won 138 and Democrats 26, with 6 going to unaffiliated candidates. Of the 52 school boards elected on a partisan basis, the GOP won majorities in 38 while Democrats 6. A majority of school districts are still elected on a nonpartisan basis. Counties with nonpartisan boards tend to have larger populations. The number of schools governed by GOP members, and Democrat members are about the same.

State Legislative level. Republicans lost one seat in the 120-member state House, winning 71 seats, just short of a “veto proof” supermajority. The State Senate held steady at 30 Republicans, the 3/5 required for a veto override if all members are present and voting.

Results were uneven across the State. In the 78 counties won by Donald Trump, the GOP dominated. But in the 22 counties won by Kamala Harris, Democrats dominated. Wake and Mecklenburg have 38 legislators, but only 3 Republicans, Erin Pare of Southern Wake, and Tricia Cotham of southern Mecklenburg and Michael Schietzelt of northern Wake. Senator Vickie Sawyer of Iredell represents a small part of Mecklenburg.

The sole State Supreme Court race was a nail-biter. Allison Riggs, appointed to complete the unexpired term of Michael Morgan, won by several hundred votes after two recounts. Legal protests and certification are still pending. Republicans maintain a 5-2 majority. Chief Justice Newby’s 401-vote victory in 2020 for an eight-year term is still important. The Chief Justice directs the Administrative Office of the Courts and its thousands of employees in every courthouse. Some of these positions are independently elected or controlled but statewide administrative control is in the Chief through the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The one seat up for reelection in 2026 (Anita Earls) is also held by a Democrat, meaning that Republicans will retain a majority of the court through at least 2028. Three Republican seats Chief Justice Newby, Barringer, and Berger will be up in 2028. Most cases are not decided along partisan lines.

The Court of Appeals was a clean sweep for Republicans. All three races were won by highly qualified candidates. Their margins of victory ranged from 1% to 2%: Thomas Murry, Valerie Johnson Zachary, and Christopher Freeman. The Court of Appeals now include 12 Republicans (Chief Dillon, Stroud, Tyson, Zachary, Gore, Griffin, Carpenter, Wood, Flood, Stading, Murry, and Freeman) and 3 Democrats (Arrowood, Collins, and Hampson) ). The Court of Appeals has never voted as an entire group. It has always voted in panels of three. Its decisions are very rarely decided along partisan lines. All three of the remaining Democrat-held seats will be on the ballot in 2026.

At the Superior Court level, Republicans won 21 races to the Democrats’ 12. There are now about an even number of Republican and Democratic Superior Court Judges, with several unaffiliated. Before 1994, there was only one Republican Superior Court Judge out of 90. At the District Court level, this year, Republicans won 69 seats, and Democrats won 59 seats, with an unaffiliated candidate winning one seat. Only seven were contested. There are now a few more Republican than Democrat District Court judges.

National level President Trump carried North Carolina again in 2024. His 3.21% margin this year was similar to his 3.66% win here in 2016, but greater than his 1.34% margin in 2020.

Republicans barely held on to a majority in Congressional House races, winning 220 seats to the Democrats’ 215. Democrats flipped 9 seats (3 each in New York and California, and 1 each in Oregon, Alabama, and Louisiana) while Republicans flipped 8 (3 in North Carolina, 2 in Pennsylvania, and 1 each in Michigan, Colorado, and Alaska.

North Carolina did not have a US Senate race in 2024. It was a good year for Republican Senate candidates nationally. They flipped seats in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Montana, giving the GOP a 53-47 majority. It was not a great night for Republicans, however. The GOP lost winnable races in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada. There will be 35 Senate races in 2026, including special elections to replace JD Vance in Ohio and Marco Rubio in Florida. Republicans are defending 22 seats, but only one of those is in a state Harris won – Maine. Democrats will defend 13 seats, including the Trump-won states of Michigan and Georgia.

While the precarious margin in the House may stymie some of President Trump’s agenda, the solid Senate majority will confirm most of his judicial and executive appointments.

Before the election, Republicans held 57 State Legislative Chambers, and Democrats held 40. Republicans flipped one chamber and now hold majorities in 58 chambers, while Democrats still control 40. The Minnesota House is evenly split. Each chamber of Alaska’s legislature is nominally Republican but will be controlled by bipartisan coalitions, with a less conservative Republican leading the Senate and Independent Rep. Bryce Edgmon as Speaker of the House. Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is officially nonpartisan but controlled by registered Republicans.

The number of individual seats in the state legislatures gained or lost continues a trend since 2020. Before the election, in the 50 State Senates (including Nebraska’s unicameral), Republicans held 1,112 seats, and Democrats held 857 seats. After the election, Republicans hold 1,132 State Senate seats, and Democrats hold 838, a net gain of 20 for the GOP and a net loss of 19 for Democrats.

Before the election, Republicans held 2,951 seats in the 49 State Houses, and Democrats held 2,431. After the election, GOP members hold 2,994 State House seats, and Democrats hold 2,401, a net gain of 43 for the Republicans and a net loss for the Democrats of 30. The difference went to other parties. The number of representatives belonging to neither major party decreased from 23 to 18.

Republicans won 8 of 11 races for the governors’ mansions. Democrats won the remaining three, including North Carolina. No states were flipped. There are now 27 Republican governors and 23 Democratic governors.

Overall, North Carolina Republicans had good election results in 2024, but some of the biggest prizes, such as Governor and Attorney General, eluded them. Virtually all commentators would agree that the entirely predictable collapse of the Mark Robinson campaign (losing badly to Josh Stein) cost the GOP 2 or 3 Council of State races (now at 5-5) and probably the Supreme Court race. The reason is that Josh Stein was able to transfer multimillions of dollars in the weeks right before the election down ballot races once he was ensured of a blowout victory.

***************************************************************

Data came from the State Board of Elections unless noted below:

School board races: https://www.ednc.org/north-carolina-school-board-election-results-by-district/
County commissions: https://x.com/UniteCarolina/status/1856174333413974481/photo/1 (Yes, it is a social media post, but I have found that guy to be a reliable source.)
Number of judges (from 2023): https://digital.ncdcr.gov/Documents/Detail/north-carolina-judicial-branch-quick-facts-2022-2023/6046351
State legislative data: https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan-composition
More state legislative data: https://documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Elections/LegisControl_2024_Post%20Election_Prelim_11.26.24-2.pdf
Alaska coalitions: https://alaskapublic.org/2024/11/06/bipartisan-coalitions-claim-control-of-both-alaska-house-and-senate/
Nebraska state legislature data: https://ballotpedia.org/Nebraska_State_Senate_(Unicameral)
Updating the 2022 state legislative numbers: https://documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Elections/Legis-Control-2022-postelection-Dec-20-2022.pdf
Governor results: https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/results/governor?election-data-id=2024-GG&election-painting-mode=projection-with-lead&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false&filter-remaining=false

A proposal to partially save Social Security

December 3rd, 2024 by Skip

Here is my simple proposal to help move Social Security towards solvency:

Increase, from age 70 to age 75, the age at which an individual stops accruing additional Social Security benefits. This proposal deals with the real demographic problem with Social Security: the decreasing ratio of workers to retirees. This proposal does not rely on decreasing benefits or raising tax rates on anyone.

Explanation. Currently the working taxpayer accrues no additional Social Security benefits after age 70. Prior to age 70 those benefits increase at a rate of about 8% per annum from the first eligibility to receive Social Security at age 62 until age 70.

We have an unusually low unemployment rate and we have had an unusually high number who could work but are not looking, especially starting during the pandemic years.

When I was 70, I kept working. When I was 71, I realized why many people who were able to work, physically and mentally, stop. They would be paying FICA taxes of 15% on earned income. This is explicit for those who are self-employed, but in real economic terms, it is also true for those employed by others paid on a W-2 basis. The cost of working (time and effort) remains the same, but the financial benefit of working past age 70 is much less.

For the US Treasury, there are budget costs and benefits. The benefit is that it will incentivize more people over 70 to work, paying income tax and FICA. From the first to the fifth year, the benefits will gradually be balanced by costs. The cost to the federal government in out years is that it will pay a higher Social Security benefit to those who take advantage of this new opportunity. My opinion is that this proposal still be a net positive for the treasury even after the fifth year.

At the state level, however, this proposal is all benefit. Taxpayers will be encouraged to remain working during their early 70s and will pay income tax to the state of North Carolina. Their increased income will result in some additional sales tax.

There are 40 states that tax income. This would be an extremely popular proposal among 80 senators and a large majority of the House.

Since President Trump has repeatedly stated that he will not raise the retirement age for Social Security (and this is in the platform which he personally authored), this proposal is one of the only ways that the tax system can recognize demographic and fiscal reality. A few decades ago, there were 16 workers paying taxes into Social Security for every retiree. America has lost 360,000 workers in the last year alone. Now the ratio is 2.5 workers for every retiree. The next generation can not bear this burden.

Conclusion. This proposal will provide better physical and mental health and enjoyment of life for many seniors. It will immediately reduce the annual federal deficit over the next five years. This will help plug the gap between our state income tax collections as projected into the future and will reduce the necessity, or desirability (for some), of adding sin taxes, which, in addition to the moral component, implicate issues of tax efficiency with their huge transactional costs.

Once again this change in law will put North Carolina on the pedestal for states engaging in true tax reform.

Are Our Justice and Election Systems Broken?

June 26th, 2024 by Skip

Many of my clients and friends have asked me whether our justice and election systems are broken. My entire adult life has been lived in North Carolina so I will share what I know from my experience here. For you to evaluate whether my opinion is informed you need to know a bit of my political / legal history.

I didn’t vote in the first election for which I was eligible. I was in infantry training in 1968 at Camp Geiger (Lejeune). I was discharged in 1970 and registered as a Republican. I didn’t like the Democrat agenda of acid, abortion and amnesty. I attended Michigan State studying criminal justice from 1970 to 1972. I was a conservative political activist. I protested against Jane Fonda and the Black Panthers. I ran for campus political office.

I worked in the justice system for 51 years. In the summer of 1972 I was an intern for the District Attorney of Guilford County. Doug Albright was an elected Democrat. Fall of 1972 I made my first political contribution – $100 to Jim Holshouser. That was a fortune to me. I married Dottie Mills in 1973. She worked!!

From 1973 to 1975 I worked during law school through the School of Government on Pattern Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases for the Conference of Superior Court Judges. My professor, Arnold Loewy, was the expert on criminal law and a liberal Democrat. I had helped to begin Christian Legal Society at Chapel Hill with my friend, Joe Knott, (father of Congressman Brad Knott). Although Mr. Loewy was a liberal Democrat and Jewish, I was his assistant. The committee included Judge James Exum, a Superior Court Judge from Greensboro. On the recommendation of Professor Loewy, a Democrat, to newly elected Justice James Exum, a Democrat, I was hired as his research assistant during his first full year in office at the Supreme Court. He later became Chief Justice. He knew I was a conservative Republican. We worked together well. He is a fine, honorable man.

After that year I came to Apex to work with Carl Holleman, a distant relative by marriage. He was an active Democrat, having served on the Wake County Board of Elections. His wife was head of the Democratic Wake County Women’s group. He knew I was a conservative Republican lawyer when he hired me. I became chair of Wake County Right to Life. I put out yard signs for pro-life Republican and Democrat representatives. There were some then.

In 1984 I was Co-chair of Bill Cobey’s congressional campaign. That summer there was a dearth of adequate candidates to run for a newly redistricted State Senate seat. One morning, Dave Flaherty, State GOP Chair, begged me to file by noon that day. Dave told me that if I would fill the ticket I could withdraw in the first 30 days. The party could replace me with a real candidate. My boss was not in the office so I couldn’t ask his permission. I filed with five minutes to spare. Unfortunately (or fortuitously) another GOP candidate filed against me. I had a primary. If you had a primary you could not withdraw. I did not want to lose. I competed in the four person GOP primary (for 3 seats) and came in first. We lost in the general. Again I came in first among the three Republicans. I realized that if I had known to run for the House I could have won. That’s how I got my start in politics.

A majority of my legal practice was real estate, wills, trusts and contracts. I had significant litigation practice. After my 49th year as a licensed attorney I’ve had about 50 jury trials, several hundreds of lawsuits, and several dozen appeals to the Appellate courts.

I ran for elective office 14 times. At one point I was 1-6 but decided to try one more time. I then won seven in a row and finished 8-6 – more losses than Abraham Lincoln. I lost elections twice to the Court of Appeals, twice to the State Senate, and twice to the State House.

I was known to be active in the party, at every level. I served on the state platform
committee about 10 times, seven as chair. I presided over one state convention and was
parliamentarian for several others.

During my time practicing law, Wake County was dominated by Democrat judges and attorneys. From 1994 until 2000, I was the unofficial recruiter for Superior Court judges and Appellate judges. I had to know the political leanings of judges, both Republican and Democrat.

I served 16 years in the House, the last 10 of which as Republican Leader of the House, both minority and majority, and the last four as Speaker Pro Tem.

This lengthy background is necessary so that you understand my conclusions about whether the justice and election systems are broken.

The justice system is not broken. It has problems. Criminal and civil cases take too long. In 2013, I assembled a working group of 50 “stakeholders” of all parties. We proposed, and had passed, dozens of recommendations to speed up the process. That helped. More needs to be done.

I never witnessed any corruption. Not once did I have any credible information that corruption existed. Out of the last thousand judges in North Carolina, one or two have been removed from office for corruption and others have been removed for other reasons. It would not surprise me if there were a dozen of the last 1000 who were corrupt. We didn’t know who they were. The vast majority of our judges are honest and diligent.

What about bias? I was well-known as a conservative active Republican, appearing the vast majority of times before Democrat judges. I never felt one time that when I lost it was because of my party or ideology. Nor if I won was it for that reason, not once. Some of the judges were just wrong in their legal rulings.

Twice I ran against Democrats for the Court of Appeals, 1998 and 2000. Each time I got about 49% of the vote and lost because I had fewer votes than they did. I also ran in 2000 with a Republican who won with 51%. We drove around the state campaigning together. A couple of years later I appeared before a panel of the Court of Appeals that was comprised of those same 3 judges. One of the Democrat judges ruled in my favor. The Republican and one Democrat ruled against me. Because of the dissent by one Democrat judge I took it to the Supreme Court where we won the case for parental rights. (In Re: Stumbo)

Are the judges in North Carolina conflicted? I doubt it. Legal conflicts in North Carolina are defined quite precisely. The fact that a judge has a relative in some position is unlikely to ever constitute a conflict. Nor would a de minimis contribution to a candidate not involved in a case.

Are legal cases in North Carolina rigged? I doubt it. I have had clients tell me they suspected bribery, but none could ever give me a usable tip to pursue.

What about the legislature? 170 people can’t come to Raleigh year after year without having some criminals hidden amongst them. As Republican Leader for six years I had the unpleasant task of asking two Republican House members to promptly resign – sharing with them the real-world consequences of not resigning. Some of the Democrat leaders have had the same unpleasant task of demanding that members resign or not run again. I served on the House ethics panel that had the unpleasant task of recommending that Rep. Thomas Wright be expelled for real corruption about 10 years ago.

Compared to the reports of corruption in some other state legislatures, my opinion is that, in a technical sense, the North Carolina legislature is squeaky clean. What is not good is the extreme amount of cash that comes to legislative caucuses and to individual members with expectations that they will do something they were not otherwise planning to do.

The Election System is not broken.

I participated in 14 of my own election and then, as Republican Leader, for six years had a responsibility to be aware of what was happening in dozens of other races. I was not happy with some of the results. One of my losses was very close. I ran against a female Democrat and a male Libertarian. He was more conservative than most Libertarians. By taking 4% of the male conservative vote he cost me that election. I was not happy with my other losses. But I never had any reason to blame the counting of votes by the election machinery.

I have taken a detailed look at the 2020 and 2022 elections, both statewide and nationally. You can read my analyses in depth on these links. In 2020 Republicans in North Carolina did great, even though the election machinery was all in the hands of majority Democrats—controlled by Governor Cooper. Chief Justice Newby won by a smidgen. If Democrats were planning to steal one they missed their chance. In 2022 North Carolina did great again. We had a red wave, although much of the country did not. The election machinery was still in the hands of Democrats at the state and local level.

There are always going to be close races. With Democrats in control of the election machinery from 2018 through 2023 there have been no serious issues with the vote count.

In 2024 we will have, for the first significant election, voter ID. That will help instill confidence in the results. Voter ID is important. Lack of voter ID has not caused a change in result in any recent known North Carolina election.

North Carolina’s Justice and Election systems are not broken, rigged, or corrupt.

Letters: Justice Systems Broken

A rebate to taxpayers? Let’s pay down debt instead

May 14th, 2024 by Skip

Some legislators have proposed that the General Assembly send some tax money back to us. That sounds like fun.

I have another idea: Use whatever money is in mind to pay down state debt. State debt currently stands at $8 billion. This would not change the state balance sheet. It would reduce the chance of future tax increases. It would keep in place the rate at which income tax rates will go down in the future. Our income tax rate for 2024 is 4.5%. It is already in law to go to 3.99%. Why upset the applecart?

Paying down state debt would reduce the temptation to spend “one time” (nonrecurring) money on low priorities. This is a big problem in state government. There is too much “one-time money” sloshing around in state reserve accounts. As a result, in 2023 there were record amounts of “directed local projects” — especially in the districts of those controlling the budget. We used to call this “the pork barrel.” I remember the election of 1988. We campaigned and won against the “gang of eight” and their “pork barrel.”

There are practical problems with a “rebate” to taxpayers.

First, it makes it more likely that in the future the state will either have to raise tax rates or forego future tax-rate decreases.

Second, if we are passing out tax dollars, who gets how much? Does each person who filed an income tax return for 2023 receive an equal amount — say $1,000? That is the thought of at least one budgeteer. Can you imagine the howls from those who paid $50,000 in taxes looking at those who only paid $1,100? Or is the rebate in proportion to 2023 tax liability? In that case I can imagine the howls of indignation and scorn from those cashing a $50 “rebate” check. What if the taxpayer amends the 2023 return in 2025? Does she get more then? Does this rebate include other taxable entities like estates and trusts? These are people too. What do we do with rebate checks to people who died recently? The practical problems are endless.

Third, it is inefficient. Collecting state income tax only costs about one cent on the dollar. Paying it back out probably costs 3 cents on the dollar — a combined waste of 4 cents on the dollar. Paying down debt has transactional costs of zero.

Fourth, this will be perceived as an election year gimmick. Will it work?

In 2020, I received $32.00 from the IRS, along with a personalized letter signed by the president. I don’t think it helped him in November 2020.

1864 and Abortion Law

April 26th, 2024 by Skip

On April 9, 2024, the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated a statute criminalizing those who perform abortions, except to preserve the life of the mother. The blogosphere and the networks were aghast that this statute was originally adopted in 1864. Is a statute better because its origins are of old, or is it worse? Liberals can’t make up their collective mind on this point.

The year 1864 is not surprising. The entire nation was in the middle of, not only a civil war, but also a national legal reform to protect the lives of preborn children. In 1859, the American Medical Association unanimously adopted a resolution “condemning abortion at every period of gestation, except as necessary to preserve the life of mother or child.” The stated reason was the increasing frequency “of such unwarrantable destruction of human life.”

The common law, as of 1776, and probably as of 1669 in North Carolina, made abortion a crime from conception.

“The moment the womb is instinct with embryo life and gestation has begun . . .” the crime may be committed, State v. Slagle (1880).

These “facts of life” have been well known for two centuries. The very first two sentences of The Developing Human — Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd ed 1977) by Keith Moore states:

No new science has changed that truth in 50 years. Nor was it newly discovered in 1859.

The law caught up with science in the 19th century. By 1868, the vast majority of states criminalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy. The appendix to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health lists several dozen statutes from the mid 19th century. Many of the state court decisions from the mid to late 19th and also the early 20th century made the point that these protective laws were motivated by a sincere belief that abortion kills a human being.

Dobbs notes that 13 of the territories that later became states criminalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy between 1850 (Hawaii) and 1919 (New Mexico). By the end of the 1950s, all but four states and the District of Columbia prohibited abortion, unless performed to save or to preserve the life of the mother.

In the 19th century, civil law also kept up with science by protecting the rights of unborn children from conception. The law of North Carolina was that the property, real and personal, of one dying without a will immediately vests in a child en ventre sa mere.

In 1823, a NC statute clarified: “[n]o inheritance shall descend to any person, unless such person shall be in life at the death of the person last seized, or shall be born within ten months after the death of the person last seized.”

Ten lunar months are 280 days. By 1839, a child, once conceived, could take a property interest under a will to “children.” In 1854 NC statutes clarified that “[a]n infant unborn, but in esse, shall be deemed a person capable of taking by deed as if he were born.”

Even after Roe v Wade most abortionists will admit that after conception the embryo is a living human being. I have debated two abortionists and deposed two others. They said, of course it is a living human being.

Only politicians and the press deny this obvious fact of life.

Confusion on IVF

March 22nd, 2024 by Skip

There is confusion on what a human embryo is. It is not sperm. It is not an egg. The very first two sentences of “The Developing Human — Clinically Oriented Embryology, (2nd ed 1977)” by Keith Moore states:

No new science has changed that truth in the last 50 years. What is the law here?

North Carolina law on unborn children is not confused. N.C. Sen. Bill 20 (2023) makes lawful abortions up to the 12th week of pregnancy with limited exceptions. Without that law and its Roe v. Wade predecessor, the criminal law would be the same as common law.

The common law (as of 1776, and probably as of 1669) made abortion a crime from conception. “The moment the womb is instinct with embryo life and gestation has begun . . .” the crime may be committed (1880)

N.C. civil law also considers the unborn child to be protected from the time of conception.

The law of North Carolina is that the property, real and personal, of one dying without a will immediately vests in a child en ventre sa mere. In 1823, the statute clarified: “[n]o inheritance shall descend to any person, unless such person shall be in life at the death of the person last seized, or shall be born withing ten months after the death of the person last seized.” Ten lunar months is 280 days. A child, once conceived, could take a property interest under a will to “children.” (1839)

An 1854 statute states that “[a]n infant unborn, but in esse, (in existence) shall be deemed a person capable of taking by deed as if he were born.” Note the words “infant unborn.”

For all purposes beneficial to her, the unborn child was protected by the civil law. Law and biology were consistent and considered the child in the womb to be within the protection of law from conception.

There is confusion between abortion and IVF.

In either abortion or IVF, the intention includes the destruction of a living human being. Of those embryos created by IVF, most are to be discarded, and only one or two are intended to be implanted and proceed to birth.

There are differences. The obvious one is size. Another is pain. I am not aware of evidence that the embryo at one week has the capacity to feel pain. There is capacity for the unborn child to feel pain somewhere between 10 and 15 weeks after fertilization.

On the other side, the destruction of most of the embryos in the IVF procedure is morally worse than the abortion of the child in the womb. How so? The usual reasons stated for abortion do not apply. The woman seeking IVF has not been impregnated by rape or incest. Neither her life nor her health are in any danger. By definition, she wants at least one of these children and can afford to raise her. The child will not interfere with her career or education nor, as the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1993, interfere with her consideration of the mysteries of existence and her place in the universe.

I suppose that if IVF were accomplished by creating one or two embryos and implanting them, some of the moral objections would be less powerful. The general practice is to create multiple embryos in the test tube, test them, implant one or two and destroy the rest.

Those with a historical or biblical turn of mind might study the first chapter of Luke, written by a historian. When Jesus was about 8 days old (in Mary’s womb) his cousin, John the Baptist, leapt for joy because John was in the presence of the Messiah (John’s mother was in her sixth month).

Embryos are plentiful. They are not worthless.

Does the English language need an update?

January 1st, 2024 by Skip

English is the world’s language of culture and commerce. It is always changing. Try reading Shakespeare or the King James Bible (1611).

Decades ago, most could distinguish between “both” and “each” as in “both Jack and Jill went up the hill” and “each candidate presented his or her platform.” Now these terms are used interchangeably and, as a consequence, neither is clear.
“Meat gets done. People are finished.” There is a difference between “done” and “finished” but the difference will shortly disappear because of one unalterable fact. Billions of times every day an electronic device requires us to push “done” when we are “finished.” Yesterday I called “Siri, telephone call to ????” (S)he or it replied: “To who?”
Who can forget Justice Neil Gorsuch’s faux pas in Bostock. This “textualist” and “originalist” thought he should interpret “sex” in the 1965 Civil Rights Act as meaning the same as “gender” means to some today. He failed to consult Fowler’s Modern English Usage, 2^nd ed., 1965, which explained that someone making that error was either joking or ignorant. That decision changed the law of the country with no input from Congress.

These changes have real life consequences.

Other transitions have occurred in the last decade.

Hateful used to mean that a human individual was full of hatred, to wit, a settled rejection of another human. Now the term is often used to mean that a human being or an organization or an amorphous group disagrees with someone else on a matter of importance.
Shameful used to mean that the writer (or a group of which he or she is more or less associated) has done something of which he or she has a serious feeling of moral regret. It now means (to some) that someone else or a group of which I am not a member has done something of which I would be ashamed if I had done it.
Disenfranchised properly means that an individual no longer has the right to vote, either for public or private office, for which that person was previously able to vote e.g. by conviction of a felony. Now it refers to individuals, groups, and societies that don’t feel that their collective voice will prevail against the actual majority.

Other changes took centuries:

Nice used to mean “silly, foolish, simple.”
Silly went in the opposite direction: in its earliest uses, it referred to things worthy or blessed; from there it came to refer to the weak and vulnerable, and more recently to those who are foolish.
Wench is a form of the Old English word wenchel (which referred to children of either sex), the word wench used to mean “female child” before it came to be used to refer to female servants — and more pejoratively to wanton women.
Clue: Centuries ago, a clue (or clew) was a ball of yarn. It morphed from yarn to key bits of evidence that help us solve problems.
Naughty: Long ago, if you were naughty, you had naught or nothing. Then it came to mean evil or immoral, and now just badly behaved.
Quell: Quelling something used to mean killing it, not just subduing it.
Divest: 300 years ago, divesting could involve undressing as well as depriving others of their rights or possessions. It has only recently come to refer to selling investments.
Senile: Senile used to refer simply to anything related to old age, so you could have senile maturity. Now it refers specifically to elders suffering from senile dementia.

20 words that once meant something very different

It is not just words. The overuse of the passive voice can obscure the truth.

Active voice: A stray dog ate my doughnut.

Passive voice: My doughnut was eaten by a stray dog.

Passive on steroids: It seems that my doughnut was eaten.

Recently a reporter wrote: “his victory seemed to be a reflection of…” but the reporter never stated when or to whom it so seemed, leaving the reader to conclude an everlasting groundswell of public approval.

CONCLUSION

“ Horace, writing more than 2,000 years ago in The Art of Poetry observed that usus (“usage”) is the ius et norma loquendi (“the right and rule of speech”). The change can come about naturally and gradually with social and cultural change, or it can come more rapidly and destructively either through the domination of language by the ignorant and inept, or by intentional distortions and to control information and argument by ideological fanatics. What we have seen recently is a “woke” assault on meaning — the ability of language to correspond with the real message that the speaker wants to convey to the learner.”

“There is effective and beneficial change in language. It occurs when wise writers and speakers find ways to enhance the range and subtlety of words and phrases. Now we have the reverse: all too many users of the language abuse it by flattening out distinctions and nuances so that the ability to communicate clearly is lost.” Robert V. Young, Professor Emeritus, NC State University.

Letters: English language-detransition

Thanksgiving 2023

November 23rd, 2023 by Skip

Family and Friends,

Thanksgiving arrives just in time for an accounting of my time to family and including 3,800 electronic friends.

Thanks to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who has never disappointed or failed. A warm thank you to Dottie who is talented and gracious. Her mother “Dot Dot” is 97 years of age. She has been the ideal mother-in-law. My children, Nathan and Jana, have been a real joy. Their spouses, Kristi and Jimmy, are wonderful parents to our 9 grandchildren. The nine could have been born on 9 continents – so different in personality. Each one is fun.

I was licensed to practice law on October 14, 1975. I will begin my Jubilee Year on October 14, 2024. What is a Jubilee year?

Leviticus 25:8-13 ⁸ “The time of the seven weeks of years shall give you forty-nine years. ⁹ On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land. ¹⁰You shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan. ¹¹That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; in it you shall neither sow nor reap what grows of itself nor gather the grapes from the undressed vines. ¹²For it is a jubilee. It shall be holy to you. You may eat the produce of the field. ¹³“In this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his property.”

In 2024 Yom Kippur is on October 11-13. This is how I am planning for that year.

By Summer 2024 I hope to transition from full time law practice to part time. In 2024/2025 school year, I plan to teach part time at the high school level at private schools. In 2024/2025 I will be in the second and last year of a three year term as a Commissioner of the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission. That takes a lot of time.

I won 8 and lost 6 elections to the NC House. At one point I was 1-6. Only Abe Lincoln, 7-7, had more losses. Over 36 years I was in, out, back in and back out of politics. There were lots of legislative wins and plenty of losses. For a full accounting see www.paulstam.info. (149 articles)

I have a new project for legislation. I need your help. When I turned 71, I realized why we have a worker shortage and high federal budget deficits. I have a partial solution that has been blessed by two economists and a several members of Congress:

Raise the age from 70 to 75 at which a taxpaying worker stops accruing additional Social Security benefits. At 73 I am still paying Social Security taxes. (In reality for everyone it is 15%.) I want to work. Millions of us retire too early, because it does not make financial sense to continue. Would you join me in this effort. It will partly solve the Worker Shortage and somewhat reduce the annual federal deficit. For North Carolina it will mean more revenue without raising tax rates at all. It addresses the real demographic problem: too few workers for the number retired.

In September I enjoyed another Labor Day weekend in the mountains – this time to Ashe County, hiking at Daughton National Park and Elk Knob State Park. I swim 2-3 times a week. It is great for my health. It is difficult to injure yourself swimming laps. I take grandchildren with me when they can. All six boys now beat me and the three girls are catching up.

I do not like receiving birthday or Christmas presents. I do like to give them. There is a situation to which I have been contributing for decades. I help support two women with special needs. One is 76. I was her guardian for 37 years. She has a permanent brain injury. When she was 30 she was a passenger in an automobile accident. Her mental level is about age 12. Her husband and two of her three children abandoned her. She works part time as a bagger. She lives on about $12,000.00 per year. She lives in a 50-year-old mobile home.

The second woman is 50. She has been disabled since birth, with rickets and other spinal conditions. She also has a bipolar condition, controlled by medication. I am one of three trustees. The trust owns an old house in Johnston County where she lives and often takes care of her grandchildren. She has very limited income. I try to supplement her needs. The trust also owns 8 cemetery lots at Montlawn south of Raleigh. Do you need some?

If you would like to help them, send a nondeductible check to Stam Law Firm Trust Account to bless these two women.

I have been blessed beyond measure.

Psalm 103 “Bless the Lord, O my soul,
    and all that is within me,
    bless his holy name!
²Bless the Lord, O my soul,
    and forget not all his benefits,
³who forgives all your iniquity,
    who heals all your diseases,
⁴who redeems your life from the pit,
    who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,
⁵who satisfies you with good
    so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.”

Cordially,

Paul “Skip” Stam

Out of Harm’s Way – No Way to Run U.S. Armed Forces

September 30th, 2023 by Skip

In a women’s varsity soccer conference tournament, Cary High School lost 3-0 to Apex. During the regular season, Cary had tied Apex 1-1, then beat Apex 1-0. I have figured out why Cary lost in this final match-up.

I listened to Cary’s Coach Norcus’ talk with his team at half time. “Okay women, I’m going to talk to Apex Coach Middleton. I am going to tell him that we are not going to finish this game until we know how many goals Apex is going to score in the second half. We are down by 2. We need a clear line on Apex’s plans so we will know how many goals to score.

“Another thing. We are not sending any of you women into harm’s way,” Coach Norcus said. “There is entirely too much pushing and shoving in the game. I am going to let that Apex coach know that his team is not to hurt you at all.”

“But, Coach,” said Mary Lou “we have been training all year to tangle with the Cougars.”

“Well, this is a new day and there are different rules. I do not believe in letting any of you get hurt. If Apex doesn’t like it, they can find someone else to play with.

“I’m going to talk to the ref. We need an exit strategy. When the game is over, we need to know how we are going to get out without getting mobbed by all these crazy fans. If the ref can’t give me an exit strategy, we are not playing.”

This isn’t exactly why Cary lost to Apex. It illuminates why the American government, despite having an overwhelming technological, material and training advantage, has problems dealing with international crises.

In 1996 Coach Bill Clinton was befuddled. Saddam Hussein had figured him out and played Bill like a yo-yo. Saddam let us lob million-dollar cruise missiles at $50,000 targets in southern Iraq that can easily be replaced. In return, we did not even attempt to stop his slaughter of Kurds in northern Iraq – abandoning those who had been working with us for years.

President Clinton considered sending troops to Zaire. Television reports from Fort Bragg treated us to the spectacle of parents and spouses complaining that Thanksgiving and Christmas was no time to send out the troops. What an embarrassment to our brave soldiers.

Following the Bill Clinton model, Presidents Obama, Trump and Biden each set timetables and exit strategies in Afghanistan. In January 2021, then President Trump ordered his generals to get everybody out of Afghanistan within weeks. The generals refused. Biden refused to follow the advice of his generals in August 2021 with disastrous results.

I prefer a different philosophy of struggle. It was said in 991 AD by a hard-pressed soldier facing an onslaught of Danes at the Battle of Maldon Bridge

Hearts shall be bolder,
Harder be purpose,
More proud the spirit
As our power lessens.
Minds shall not falter
Nor mood waiver
Though doom come
And dark conquer.

Even More Tragedy for Ukraine and Russia

September 1st, 2023 by Skip

November 2022, I published “Two Tragedies for Ukraine and Russia.” This article updates with additional developments and more information.

For the last 18 months the world has been flooded with news of Russia’s war against Ukraine. I estimate there have been at least 354,000 soldiers and civilians killed and many times that wounded and sickened. Since the war began, 20,000 to 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers have lost limbs. It is estimated that 7,000 to 10,000 are still in need of prosthetics.[1]

Between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainians have been involuntarily deported by the Russians from the territory of Ukraine and sent to the Russian Federation, including Siberia.[2] Last November 60,000 civilians were “evacuated” from Kherson to other Russian controlled areas. [3] This war crime was a favorite of Stalin’s. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Putin for his deportation of Ukrainian children. Russia intends to permanently separate these children from their families and erase their Ukrainian identity.

As of April 2022, 11.4 million Ukrainians had sought safety in Europe and beyond.[4]

Since then, about 5.5 million have returned for a net outmigration of 6.2 million from Ukraine.[5]

Thousands of Russians left at the beginning of the war. 700,000 men fled Putin’s “partial mobilization” in September and October, 2022.[6]

$147.5 billion of destruction of buildings and infrastructure have been wreaked

upon Ukraine by Russian missiles, artillery, and drones as of April 2023.[7] Each side has used up many tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons, ammunition and equipment which will be replaced. Last year, Russia’s war against Ukraine cost the world economy $1.6 trillion. In 2023 the cost is estimated to be another $1 trillion.[8]

The magnitude of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and atrocities inflicted by Russia on the Ukrainians can hardly be appreciated, much less calculated.

ANOTHER TRAGEDY

The dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1991 accelerated the rapid decline of the Russian Federation economically, demographically and spiritually. From 1991-1995 there was a brief interval of relative freedom (with corruption). In 1995, Russia returned to its old ways of corruption, dictatorship and alcoholism. By 2022 the Russian total population of 144,713,314 had been declining for years.[9] Life expectancy in Russia for men is only 68.2 years, for women 78 years.[10] The Russian fertility rate before the war was 1.8 children per adult woman.[11] To keep a stable population over the long term, a fertility rate of 2.1 is necessary. Russia is gradually committing demographic suicide.

Ukraine had the same problems, including an even lower fertility rate of 1.2[12] and corruption, but with substantially more political and religious freedom. At the start of Russia’s war, Ukraine’s population was about 43.9 million. Its population now is around 37 million.[13]

On August 1, 2023, CNN reported that nearly half of those detained by Russian forces in Kherson were subject to torture, including sexual violence, often genital electrocution designed to keep the victim childless,[14] evidence that Russia is committing genocide.

In 1991 religious freedom was possible in Russia. That year Russian parliamentarians came to North Carolina to study what religious freedom looks like. More recently the dark cloud of corruption and despair have descended over the Russian Orthodox Church as it linked its fortunes to Putin. Its patriarch proclaimed that Russians who die in battle against Ukraine would have all their sins forgiven.[15] This doctrine of works is a repudiation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.[16]

Although Russia has been impoverished by its war, it has actually gained population! The numbers it has deported from Ukraine to Russia exceed the number Russia has lost in battle plus the number of those who fled.

Ukraine has been known as the “breadbasket” of Europe. Russia is one of the world’s foremost exporters of grain. No one has yet discerned a rational reason that Putin initiated this war. Could it be that Putin’s war was a play for population to serve in Russia’s factories and harvest its crops. Putin wants to restore the Russian Empire – a return to serfdom with Putin as Tsar.

A NEW TRAGEDY IN AMERICA?

There is a potential tragedy in America. The twentieth century gave plenty of warning that war in Europe would inevitably come to America. The America First movement led by Charles Lindberg met its Pearl Harbor. The sinking of American ships by German submarines brought us into World War I. Late entrances by America resulted in much greater cost in lives and futures lost, not to mention the enormous extra financial cost.[17]

A minority of each party in Congress disregards history and common sense, appealing to the understandable, but naïve, desire of Americans to be left alone. America Firsters often claim that the American contribution to Ukraine’s defense is many times greater than the Europeans. But the contribution of the European Union together with its member nations and the European members of NATO is roughly equivalent to that of the United States. “Europe’s Real Test is Yet to Come” at page 71 by Radek Sikorski in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2023.[18] The population and economic power of these European countries is roughly equivalent to the population and economic power of the United States.

Because of the disastrous August 2021 Biden execution of the January 2021 disastrous Trump plan for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, our allies in Taiwan were already skeptical that America would really come to its defense. America Firsters have aggravated that lack of confidence.

Would abandonment of Taiwan and Ukraine really save America money? Not in this universe.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/08/27/1194391578/ukraine-soldier-war-injury-prosthetics- amputation#:~:text=Because%20the%20Ukrainian,wait%20for%20care.

[2] U.S. Accuses Russia of Large-Scale Ukrainian Deportations – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[3] Russia evacuates civilians in Kherson as Putin’s military faces Ukrainian advance (nbcnews.com)

[4] What a 11.4 million Ukraine refugee exodus looks like, in maps (nbcnews.com)

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/world/europe/ukraine-frontline-russia-war.html#:~:text=UKRAINE%20DISPATCH,line%2C%20as%20well.

[6] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/where-have-russians-been-fleeing-since-mobilisation-began-2022-10-06/#:~:text=Factbox%3A%20Where%20have%20Russians%20been,700%2C000%2C%20citing%20a%20Kremlin%20source.

[7] https://kse.ua/about-the-school/news/147-5-billion-the-total-amount-of-damages-caused-to-ukraine-s-infrastructure-due-to-the-war-as-of-april-2023/

[8] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/ukraine-war-cost-world-economy-over-16t-study/2826940#:~:text=RUSSIA%2DUKRAINE%20WAR-,Ukraine%20war%20cost%20world%20economy%20over%20%241.6T%3A%20Study,easing%20on%20the%20global%20raw%20material%20and%20energy%20markets%20is%20assumed.,-Anadolu%20Agency%20website

[9] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/russia-population/#:~:text=Population%20of%20Russia,Disclaimer%20%26%20Privacy%20Policy

[10] https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/russia-life-expectancy#:~:text=WORLDHEALTHRANKINGS,of%20the%20page

[11] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/fertility-rate#:~:text=Russia%20Fertility%20Rate,increase%20from%202019

[12] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1155943055/ukraine-low-birth-rate-russia-war#:~:text=To%20keep%20a,to%20national%20statistics

[13] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ukraine-population/

[14] https://apple.news/AxrqSd_kyQOGpzBj1o3DG-w

[15] https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-religion-moscow-0d2382ff296b7e253cd30c6bbadeed1d

[16] https://albertmohler.com/2022/09/29/briefing-9-29-22

[17] Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

[18] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/europe/european-union-defense-war-ukraine-radek-sikorski#:~:text=Europe%E2%80%99s%20Real%20Test,June%2020%2C%202023

It’s final. I am not running for President in 2024.

May 26th, 2023 by Skip

Republicans meet June 8 to 11 in Greensboro. Delegates need to know that I am not running for President in 2024. Why?

I am 72 years old. Before my second term expires I will be 82. I am too old.

There are reasons that someone as experienced (old) as I might not be electable. In 2003 my daughter was my legislative assistant. She was a libertarian. I was considering a bill about safety restrictions on young ATV drivers. She told me she might run against me in the next primary – she had just as much name recognition (then Stam) as I did, but without all my baggage. Twenty years later I have even more baggage (a voting record).

I graduated from high school when I was 17, telling classmates that I planned to be President in 1992. To round out my resume I volunteered for military service (USMC 1968-1970). Previous presidents had served: Eisenhower (5 Star General), Kennedy (naval officer), Johnson (Navy), Nixon (Naval Reserve), Ford (Naval Reserve), Carter (naval officer – nuclear sub), Reagan (Army).

I have noticed recently that prior military service has become a negative, politically. Who

would have thought that the youngest Navy pilot of WWII, a hero, George H.W. Bush, would lose to draft dodger, Bill Clinton. Clinton won a plurality of the votes of veterans!!

Who would have thought that President Obama would defeat John McCain, a real hero of the Vietnam War. As the son of an Admiral, he could have been released years earlier from the tortures of a prisoner of war camp. He chose to stay with his men. I realize now that my military service in 1968-70, as insignificant as it was, could be a negative for my ambitions.

In 1970-75 I attended four different schools on the GI bill. I had always been a bookworm and have maintained that practice for the last 65 years, reading and writing extensively. When I write, (www.paulstam.info) I strive for factual accuracy. One article required 27 revisions before my assistant would let it be published. For high federal office factual accuracy has now become an anachronism. But there is more.

Joe Biden won election as Vice President, and again as President, despite a credible accusation of the rape of Tara Reade. He also had a record of other unwanted actions toward women. Who can forget Bill Clinton’s tomcat behavior, even in the Oval Office? Fidelity now means nothing to voters, except that a candidate is boring.

I have prepared thousands of wills and powers of attorney for clients older than I – even nonagenarians. Competency to execute a will does not require the judgment, energy or competence required for the presidency. But a president needs more than passing a quiz, “What month is it?” “Who is president today?” “Draw a clock at 2:30”.

We elders are aware of the slow, cognitive decline that makes us so adorable. My favorite president was Ronald Reagan. His eighth year was not his best. Not too long after his retirement he had early onset Alzheimer’s. Who can predict when that might start for you or for me?

For all these reasons I decline to run for president in 2024. Republicans have many fine candidates from whom to choose.

These words from King Solomon speak to political ambition:

“When you sit down to dine with a ruler, consider carefully what is before you. Put a knife to your throat if you are a person of great appetite.” Proverbs 23:1-2

Sincerely,

Paul “Skip” Stam

Political and Racial Gerrymander Myths

May 25th, 2023 by Skip

In these political times the last refuge of liberal losers is the cry that everything they don’t like legislatively is because of the “gerrymander.” On NBC, CNN and MSNBC in May 2023 Governor Roy Cooper said: “Technologically, diabolical gerrymandering. Some of the worst in the country” He didn’t like limitations on abortion or expansions of school choice.

As Dave Larson pointed out in his essay “Super-technologically-diabolical Gerrymandering” (Carolina Journal May 19, 2023), there was no political gerrymander that formed the 2023 – 2024 session of the General Assembly. There may have been one Republican political gerrymander in the past (2017-18) and there may be more in the future. But the current legislature is the result of a Democrat political gerrymander in 2022 of the State Senate and Congressional delegation. The House map was passed almost unanimously, hardly evidence of any kind of political gerrymander. The Congressional map was drawn by special masters chosen by the Democrat Supreme Court. They were ordered to use political criteria to create a Democrat result.

When they’re not blaming the nonexistent political gerrymander, the other cry is a “racist gerrymander.” Let’s look at that more carefully.

In the 2010 general elections, House Republicans picked up 16 seats using a 2004 Democrat-crafted political gerrymander to make a (68 – 52) majority (one independent joined Republicans). The GOP picked up 11 seats in the State Senate for a super majority, (31 – 19).

After the census of 2010, the General Assembly had the legal duty to redistrict the entire state, applying federally required population criteria and the state constitution’s “whole county” provision. The Assembly proceeded to do so, but there was a complication. Federal law required, under the Voting Rights Act, that “racial gerrymandering” must be done to create minority – majority districts where possible. The U.S. Justice Department, run by Attorney General Eric Holder, appointed by President Barack Obama, approved the maps. They were also approved by the State Supreme Court twice and by federal courts. In 2014 African American Democrats made big gains, but it did not help Democrats as a whole. Republicans gained even more seats and obtained supermajorities in the House (77 – 43) and in the Senate (34 – 16).

The U.S. Supreme Court changed its mind (Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 2014) and decided that what it required in 2011 was hereafter prohibited as an illegal racial gerrymander. The maps would have to be redrawn. The 2011 North Carolina maps were attacked again under this new U.S. Supreme Court doctrine. The maps were redrawn for the 2016 election.

But the narrative had been set by the then legal maps drawn in 2011. Republican legislators must have had race in their hearts (retroactively) instead of complying with the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. They must be bad people. They were guilty of not reading the future minds of Supreme Court Justices.

On July 29, 2016, McCrory came down from the Fourth Circuit just in time for the general election. It claimed that the Voter ID bill (passed in 2013) had been crafted “with almost surgical precision” to disadvantage black voters. The Appeals Court disregarded the evidence from the only election where voter ID had been used in 2016. The trial Judge heard dozens and dozens of witnesses and found that not a single African American voter who tried to vote was prevented from doing so.

On Saturday, July 30, 2016, I read in the New York Times of the “scurrilous attempt by North Carolina Republicans to suppress the rising power of black voters.” It made me feel bad, maybe I had missed something in the 25,000 pages of exhibits or in the 479 pages of the trial judge’s analysis of the evidence. But I had not yet read the McCrory Fourth Circuit decision.

After reading the decision, I was perplexed, amused, and angry. I was perplexed because the appeals court decision ignored Supreme Court precedents, amused because the “evidence” marshaled by the Fourth Circuit was in turns ludicrous or logically fallacious. I was angry because the overwhelming will of the people had been thwarted under the guise of combating racism.

What was the proof that the Fourth Circuit found of legislative racism? Not much. The opinion makes clear that

“our conclusion does not mean, and we do not suggest, that any member of the General Assembly harbored racial hatred or animosity toward any minority group.”

Without any evidence that any of the 170 members of the General Assembly, Republican or Democrat, black, white or Indian, men or women, were intending to discriminate against African American voters, the Fourth Circuit pinned on the collective body an intent which there was no evidence that any member harbored.

The Court marshals another argument. At one of the public hearings Don Yelton, a GOP precinct chair, delivered a baldly racist statement. The Court even cited his call-in to the Daily Show!!

“The statements do not prove that any member of the General Assembly acted with discriminatory intent. But the sheer outrageousness of these public statements by a party leader does provide some evidence of the racial and partisan political environment in which the General Assembly enacted the law.”

With over 150 statements made at the public hearings, that was the best evidence the Fourth Circuit could find. The statement by a party leader does not mean that any member of the Assembly paid any attention to it. Members often pride themselves on how little attention they pay to their party. Guilt by association is McCarthyism at its worst.

In this case the “party leader” was a precinct chair. One vote is usually sufficient to elect yourself as precinct chair. This particular “party leader” was known to be constantly at odds with actual party leaders.

The next scrap of evidence was “the smoking gun.” The sponsors of the bill requested racially disaggregated data of various election methods. This request was made pre-Shelby (2013), when the US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act that required preclearance to changes in election law. It would have been legislative malpractice for the sponsors of the bill to have not requested this data prior to Shelby. The District Court carefully explained this in its 479-page opinion. The Court of Appeals ignored this obvious fact.

The next bit of “evidence” of discriminatory intent was the passage of the bill right after Shelby. The house bill was filed and considered months prior to Shelby. Although they spoke against it Democratic leaders in the House complemented the Chair of the Election Law Committee, Representative David Lewis, for a thorough and proper process. After Shelby, the Senate rules chair announced there would be an “omnibus bill.” The Fourth Circuit apparently thought the word “omnibus” had the same meaning as “ominous” and that it suddenly sprang out of the sea foam of the Aegean, like Aphrodite. But that is not what happened. The legislation which the Senate added to the House bill had been filed in the Senate for months.

The Fourth Circuit, engaging in the logical fallacy, identified by Aristotle 2500 years ago – post hoc ergo propter hoc, decided that the bill was passed because of the unprecedented gains of African Americans in electing Democrats in 2012 and that suddenly this bill became law in 2013 when Shelby gave the green light. But nothing of the sort happened. There were unprecedented gains of African Americans in the elections to the State House and Senate. But that did not help Democrats. In 2014 Democrats had their worst election outcome in 144 years, losing to super majorities in the House (74 to 26) and Senate (34 to 16), as well as the governorship, and with Republicans retaining a majority on the Supreme Court.

Neither did these reforms come because of Shelby. Voter ID came out of the 2000 Bush/Gore razor thin election in Florida, followed by the Jimmy Carter/James Baker report in 2005. That report recommended photo voter ID. Republicans filed voter ID bills in 2003 HB 10, HB 794 in 2005, HB 285 in 2007, and HB 430 in 2009.

To say that photo voter ID came because of Shelby is ludicrous. In 2010 House and Senate Republicans, then in the minority, made, as part of their 10-point campaign platform, photo voter ID as one of the laws they would pass within the first hundred days if they were given a majority. In 2011 HB 351 “Restore Confidence in Government” was passed by the House and Senate and vetoed by Governor Perdue. Photo voter ID in 2013 was passed then because there was finally a governor (McCrory) who would sign it.

Is That Abortion Industry Propaganda

May 1st, 2023 by Skip

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade. How can you tell if you are hearing or seeing propaganda instead of reasoned debate or analysis?

1. If there is no mention of the child at all, not even mention of a “fetus” or “embryo.” Or if there is no photo of the unborn child, or even a written description of her appearance or function, that is propaganda. The DNA of the baby is distinct from her parents at fertilization. Her heart is beating at six weeks. By the 12^th week each of her organs are well in place and growing.

2. If reporters say a “ban,” (rhymes with “Taliban” and means a total prohibition), it is propaganda. I have never seen a “ban.” An exception for the life of the mother is implied in law even when not expressed. Most statutes have other exceptions or definitions that operate as exceptions. Senator Lindsay Graham’s 15-week bill only protected about 7% of unborn children with 4 specific exceptions. Yet it was called a “nationwide ban.” That was propaganda.

3. If the unborn child is called a “fetus” or “embryo” that might be propaganda. “Fetus” is a proper medical term for an unborn child from 13 weeks gestation (older than an embryo). “Fetus” means “offspring” or “progeny.” The feminine is “parva fetus.” If abortionists want to use Latin to dehumanize the child, then the equivalent correct medical term for the mother is “gravida.” There is no masculine equivalent, despite the wild imaginations of those who refer to “pregnant people” rather than “pregnant women.” “To imply that an unborn child is not a “child but a fetus or an embryo” is logically analogous to saying that “she is not a child, she is a ‘toddler’.” “Fetus,” like “toddler,” designates a specific phase of the state of “childhood.”

4. In USA Today I read a full-page article on abortion. It never mentioned the child but constantly referred to “abortion care.” Propaganda. “Abortion” is to “care” as “armed robbery” is to “a bank.” In 99.99% of all abortions an individual living human being dies. If abortion is “health care” what disease is being treated?

5. When they state that the U.S. Supreme Court took away a constitutional right after 49 ½ years, that is propaganda. Justice Alito went to great lengths to clearly demonstrate there never was a constitutional right to abortion. Ask a 5^th grader to find the right to abortion in the Constitution. She will tell you it is not there. It never was, except in the fevered imaginations of seven old men with black robes. They are now dead. In North Carolina abortion has always been a crime, a misdemeanor from 1669-1881 and a felony from 1881-1973, and still a felony to “help” a friend.

6. Some say abortions after 15 weeks are only considered for life threatening emergencies and that lifesaving care is needed to prevent the death of women in cases such as ectopic pregnancies and for medical care after a miscarriage (a spontaneous abortion). Propaganda. Only 1/10 of 1% of abortions are committed because of a threat to a mother’s life or serious physical health problem. Such abortions have not, are not, and will not be any kind of offense.

7. Do it yourself abortions (for example, by mail order pills) are themselves life threatening. Without an actual examination and an ultrasound there is no way to rule out an ectopic pregnancy. Liberal excuses for DIY abortions is Propaganda. The unborn child cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy. If not resolved by about the 12^th week the child will die and the mother will be in serious danger. Removal of the child in an ectopic pregnancy has never been considered illegal, immoral or unethical. Treatment after a miscarriage is not even an abortion. The suggestion that either of these actions will be illegal is propaganda.

8. Attached are photos of the unborn child at 12, 13, 16, 17 and 24 weeks. Abortions are actually performed at about 24-25 weeks in North Carolina if the abortionist’s opinion that it is necessary to deal with some serious physical health issues. After 24-25 weeks such cases are usually referred to Virginia, Maryland or New York.

2022 Elections – State and National

December 12th, 2022 by Skip

How did the GOP do in the November 2022 elections? Here is the big picture at the local, state, and national levels.

Local level. Before the election Republicans controlled 61 County commissions. After the elections, the GOP controls 67 County commissions. Since Democrats control commissions with greater county populations, the population of counties controlled by Republican members vs Democrat members is about 50/50.

Before the Election, there were 45 GOP Clerks of Court and 55 Democrat Clerks of Court. After the Election of 2022, there are 54 GOP Clerks of Court and 45 Democrats.

Before the Election, there were 58 GOP Sheriffs and 40 Democrats as Sheriffs with 2 unaffiliated. After the Election of 2022, there are 64 GOP Sheriffs, a net gain of 6.

Republican candidates swept nearly half of the partisan School Board race – 290 total seats in 85 of the 115 school districts. There were 137 partisan races out of which Republicans won 103 and Democrats 34. Of the 41 school boards elected on a partisan basis, the GOP won all seats in 20 while Democrats swept 4. A majority of school districts are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Counties with nonpartisan boards tend to have a larger population. It may be the number of schools governed by GOP members and Democrat members is about the same.

State Legislative level. Republicans went from 69 to 71 members of the 120-member State House- one member short of the 3/5 required for a veto override if all members are present and voting. A veto override is much more achievable with 71 than with 69. The State Senate went from 28 to 30 Republicans, a “veto-proof” supermajority. Democrats fell from 22 to 20.

Results were uneven across the State. In the 80 counties won by Ted Budd the GOP dominated. But in the 20 counties won by Cheri Beasley Democrats dominated. Wake and Mecklenburg have 38 legislators, but only 2 Republicans, Erin Pare of Southern Wake and John Bradford of northern Mecklenburg. (Senator Vickie Sawyer of Iredell has a small part of Mecklenburg.)

Remember that in the 2011-2012 session the GOP held 68 House seats. Overrides of Gov. Perdue’s vetoes prevailed 8 times. There were 17 House Democrats who voted one or more times to override her. Gov. Cooper would have been overridden this year on the Budget if he had not signed it.

The State Supreme Court was a clean sweep with Republicans Richard Dietz and Trey Allen prevailing. On January 1, 2023, the Supreme Court will go from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority. Chief Justice Newby’s 401-vote victory in 2020 is still important. The Chief Justice directs the Administrative Office of the Courts and its thousands of employees in every courthouse. Some of these are independently elected or controlled on some issues but statewide administrative control is in the Chief through the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The next two seats up for reelection in 2024 (Morgan) and 2026 (Earls) are also held by Democrats, meaning that Republicans will retain control of the court through at least 2028.

The State Court of Appeals was a clean sweep for Republicans. All four races were won by highly qualified candidates: Julee Tate Flood, Donna Stroud, John M. Tyson, and Michael J. Stading. The numbers on the Court of Appeals are now 11 Republicans (Stroud, Chief, Dillon, Tyson, Murphy, Zachary, Gore, Griffin, Carpenter, Wood, Flood, Stading) and 4 Democrats (Arrowood, Collins, Hampson, and a replacement for Judge Dietz, to be appointed by Gov. Cooper). The Court of Appeals has never voted as an entire group. It has always voted in panels of three. Most panels will be two GOP judges and one Democrat.

This 6-seat sweep at the appellate level in 2022 follows an 8-seat sweep in 2020.

Of the seven statewide candidates the one with the most votes was Chief Judge Donna Stroud with over 2 million.

At the Superior Court level, there are now about an even number of Republican and Democratic Superior Court Judges with several who are unaffiliated. In 1994 there was only one Republican Superior Court Judge out of about 90. At the District Court level, this year Republicans won 51 seats, and Democrats won 43 seats. The partisan numbers are now about even.

National level. Republicans were expecting to gain (and Democrats were expecting to lose) about 25 seats in the US House. Instead, Republicans had a net gain of only 7 seats. This will result in the same margin for a House majority as Nancy Pelosi does now, with Republicans having a majority of only 222 to 213. If Gaetz, Boebert, Gosar, Greene, and Perry switch on a vote, Kevin McCarthy’s GOP caucus loses.

In early November 2022 GOP Senators were expecting to pick up one seat and come away with an advantage of 51-49. Instead, they came up with 49 seats putting Democrats with control ____ 51-49. In North Carolina, Ted Budd defeated Cheri Beasley on a vote of 50.5% to 47.3%. Budd won 80 counties.

While the House will stymie most of President Biden’s decisions, he and the Senate Majority can not be stopped from confi_____ dozens of judicial and executive appointments.

Before the election Republicans held 61 State Legislative Chambers and Democrats held 37. Five chambers flipped, but to the Democrats – the Michigan House and Senate, the Minnesota and Alaska Senates and the Pennsylvania House. It is now GOP chambers 56 to 40 Democrat chambers. Caveat: The Alaska Senate Majority Coalition is all 9 Democrats and 8 GOP of which the Speaker is GOP. The Pennsylvania House is Democrats 102 – 101 – GOP but one of the Democrats is deceased. Query: 61 + 37 = 98 instead of 99. 56 + 40 = 96 instead of 98.

The number of individual seats gained or lost is interesting. Before the election in the 49 State Senates Republicans held 1067 seats and Democrats held 851 seats. After the election, Republicans held 1104 State Senate seats and Democrats hold 849, a net gain of 37 for GOP state senators and a net loss of 2 for Democrats.

Before the election Republicans held 2927 seats in the 49 State Houses and Democrats held 2452. After the election GOP members hold 2923 State House seats and Democrats hold 2397, a net loss of 4 for the Republicans and a net loss for the Democrats of 55. The difference went to other parties. Nebraska is unicameral and officially nonpartisan although the majority are registered Republicans. Its members are not included.

The Democrats picked up Governor’s mansions in Arizona, Massachusetts, and Vermont. The GOP picked up the governor’s position in Nevada, for a net loss of 2. As of January, there will be 28 GOP Governors and 22 Democrat Governors.

Overall North Carolina Republicans had good election results in 2022 and in several other states like Florida and Iowa. We even picked up Congressional seats in New York and California. Results were not so great in the rest of the country.

NCGOP 2022 Platform

September 1st, 2022 by Skip

2022 PLATFORM COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Julie Scott Emmons, Chair

Beth Capillary, 1st District, Don Payne, 2nd District, Steven Rader, 3rd District, Evelyn Poole-Kober, 4th District, Heather Ward, 5th District, Connie Baker, 6th District, Kathryn Lawler, 7th District, Jennifer Dunbar, 8th District, Harold Mendelson, 9th District, Leisa Rowe (Secretary), 10th District, John Anglin, 11th District, Ashley Bookout, 12th District, Brandon Tucker, 13th District

Julie Scott Emmons, At Large, Kevin Austin, At Large, Addul Ali, At Large

PREAMBLE

Ronald Reagan once said that, “America is too great for small dreams.” Throughout this great nation, people from all walks of life have dreamed of freedom, opportunity, and the chance to leave this world a better place for the next generation. The North Carolina Republican Party unequivocally defends that dream.

We are the party of individuals and the institutions they create together—families, schools, congregations, neighborhoods—to advance their ideals and realize their dreams. We are the party that encourages equality for all citizens and embraces the inherent value of every single human being God creates—born and unborn. We are the party that defends the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and safeguards religious institutions against government control. We reaffirm the Constitution’s fundamental principles: limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty, and the rule of law. As a Party, we denounce bigotry, racism, sexism, anti-semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. We recognize God–not government–as the Author of these principles. We are the party that stands strong against tyranny and will fight at home and abroad to protect the lives and fundamental liberties of all people. We are the party of a growing economy that gives everyone—regardless of background–a chance in life, an opportunity to learn, work and realize the prosperity that is made possible by the freedom we hold dear.

The Republican Party is committed to the values and ideals that are the true greatness of America, and we gladly join together to fight for justice, secure the blessings of liberty, and provide true opportunity and hope for generations to come.

ARTICLE I. FAMILY

Our nation’s strength lies with the family. It is the first school of discipline, responsibility, and good citizenship. Economic strength is the foundation of the United States’ greatness. We support free markets, fair trade, and capitalist principles at home and around the world. We support free and fair trade, with allied trading partners, for North Carolina industries that seek business in the global marketplace. Threats to our economic strength should be met with sound, market-based policies designed to enhance individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a civil society. The success of marriage may impact the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, we support actions to return marriage laws to the states; therefore, we support the marriage amendment as part of the North Carolina constitution and encourage all efforts to defend it. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we affirm our support for traditional marriage.
We affirm the authority of parental rights over their children’s welfare from conception to emancipation. We support laws that require written, notarized consent for all medical treatments such as but not limited to vaccinations, immunizations, mental health treatments of minor children, drug and alcohol treatment, and counseling and services related to immunizations, contraceptives, pregnancy, abortion, sexual orientation and/or gender identity issues. Government, however, should protect children from abuse and neglect, balancing parental rights with the protection of a child’s health and safety.
We support efforts to make adoptions in North Carolina easier to access. We believe that children, when adopted in a “forever home,” have the best chances for success in life. We applaud foster parents for their dedication and urge our state to ensure that the foster care system is efficient and puts the best interests of the child first. Supports should be provided for young adults as they transition out of the foster care system.

ARTICLE II. THE ECONOMY

We support capitalism as the main economic system in the United States and will continue to ensure that this country does not become a socialist or communist nation.
We support free market solutions for societal issues, which provide the most efficient use of our resources. We support an individual’s ability to choose market-based solutions to retirement, utilities, health care and insurance, worker’s rights, or any goods and services. We believe health savings and retirement accounts should be encouraged and free of taxation.
Recognizing that wealth creation is the product of human enterprise, the free enterprise system is the most effective and just economic system in the world. It creates opportunity, rewards self-reliance and hard work, and unleashes productivity that other societies can only imagine. It is an engine of charity, making America the most philanthropic nation on earth. Government should encourage honest, productive work through elimination of both gratuitous regulations and excessive taxation.
Economic freedom is essential to human liberty and dignity. It preserves the inherent right to liberty and ownership of private property. To protect this inherent right, government must provide an environment for individual initiative and enterprise. We support encouraging economic growth through reduced regulation and taxation, and we oppose corporate favoritism.
Government should tax only to raise money for its constitutional functions. We support a thorough review of expenditures each year, and we support a taxpayer’s bill of rights. We support a federal and state balanced budget. We support the continuation of reforming the tax code to encourage economic growth that moves toward a system that taxes the broadest possible base of economic activity at the lowest possible rates.
We believe that capital gains, which are necessary for employment growth, should not be taxed as ordinary income. We believe dividend distributions should not be taxed, as that constitutes a double taxation on income.
Our nation’s economic security depends on reliable and affordable energy. We support developing energy sources within the parameters of market forces. We support the elimination of mandated renewable energy quotas and subsidies that artificially raise energy costs or taxes. We support federal revenue sharing with those states directly affected by offshore exploration and development in federal waters.
We support agriculture, agribusiness, and commercial fishing as driving forces in North Carolina’s economy. We support legislation to uphold these economic forces from burdensome and frivolous lawsuits and regulations.
We acknowledge that many North Carolina communities are underserved as to their health care needs. We support easing regulations and major reforms to Certificate of Need laws, as they can stifle competition, increase cost, and negatively impact health outcomes.

ARTICLE III. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY

Liberty is founded upon a belief in the inherent dignity of the human person and recognition that individuals possess God-given inherent rights including, but not limited to: the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The fundamental role of government is to protect those inherent rights as recognized in our Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, including its Bill of Rights, and the North Carolina Constitution, and its Declaration of Rights.
We support the free exercise of religion by all Americans. We oppose any restriction on the free exercise of religion such as removing prayer from governmental activities or name of God or similar terms from our public documents and institutions. We oppose any attempt of government to establish a state religion, or to foster one religion over another. We oppose any governmental coercive action aimed at limiting the free exercise of religion. We support the right of individuals and corporations to uphold their free exercise rights consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We support the right of all institutions, including hospitals and schools, to refuse to provide contraceptive, abortion, or other services and procedures inconsistent with their religious tenets.
Government should treat all citizens impartially and equally under the law. Unjust discrimination is detrimental to freedom for all individuals and we oppose it in any form. The concept of guaranteed equity runs counter to our beliefs. Efforts to equalize outcomes result in unequal treatment of individuals and loss of personal freedom.
The Second Amendment and the NC Constitution guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. We support the constitutional ownership, sale, purchase and carry of firearms by lawabiding citizens. Further, we support reducing the number of “gun-free zones.” Gun owners have a right to confidentiality. Personal information acquired by government agencies for gun purchases and permitting should be available to law enforcement for investigative purposes only and not for public record.
Private property should not be taken by eminent domain except for a direct public use and upon prompt payment of just compensation.
We disagree with all censorship of constitutionally protected free speech, including–but not limited to– all social media platforms.

ARTICLE IV. SANCTITY OF LIFE

We believe in the sanctity of all human life. Unborn children have constitutional rights to life and liberty and, the government must respect and protect all innocent human life from conception to natural death.
We are the Party that offers real solutions for women. We have a moral obligation to assist women who face unexpected pregnancies and applaud organizations that empower women with compassionate, life-affirming resources and care.
We oppose infanticide and urge the enactment of laws to require medical care for babies who survive abortions.
We oppose efforts to mandate the provision of abortion or to fund with taxpayer dollars organizations that provide or promote abortion services. We oppose public school-based health clinics that provide referrals, counseling and related services for abortion and contraception.
We support requiring mandatory counseling before an abortion to ensure the pregnant woman knows all of the options and resources available to her and her baby including information about the possibility of reversing the intended effects of chemical abortion drugs.
We support the right of medical professionals to refuse to participate in abortions. We support the right of pharmacists to refuse to dispense abortion inducing drugs. We believe that state funded institutions should not provide abortion training.
We oppose all forms of euthanasia and assisted suicide, as they are the ultimate form of discrimination against persons with disabilities, including newborns, the elderly and infirm. We believe these individuals should be treated with love and respect, not as a burden. We also oppose basing the denial of life saving treatments on a perceived quality of life. We urge the General Assembly to enact legislation criminalizing assisted suicide.
We support developments in biomedical research that enhance and protect human life. We oppose human cloning and the destruction of human embryos, and we support adult stem cell research.
We support criminal penalties for harming or killing an unborn child when the mother is killed or injured in a criminal act.
We support laws which require written, notarized parental consent for an abortion and/or contraceptives for their minor children.
We oppose the sale, purchase, possession, or use of fetal tissue or body parts obtained from induced abortions.

ARTICLE V. STATE GOVERNMENT

We believe that in a free society, power should rest in the hands of the people. We believe in a limited government which serves the people, rather than one that burdens them.
We affirm three distinct and equal branches of government with a system of checks and balances. No branch shall usurp the powers of any other branch, except those provided by the State Constitution. The Governor’s emergency powers which impact the rights of citizens should only be used with the consultation and approval of the Council of State.
We believe that government at all levels should not spend money it does not have and avoid passing on debts to future generations.
Government retirement and pension plans should be privately owned and portable.
We oppose unfunded state mandates, including state mandated local property tax exemptions for a particular type of business. We oppose excessive regulation of commerce and industry by either statute or administrative rule, and support sunset provisions that require reauthorization for a business regulatory statute or rule to continue in force.
No State funds should be spent without an explicit appropriation. We oppose “slush funds” as rewards for political support. Raiding of dedicated funds should not be allowed except in an emergency as determined by law. Every bill heard in committee should receive a recorded vote. The budget bill should be made public at least two legislative days before the final vote in each house. To assure transparency, every committee substitute to a pending bill should be scheduled in committee and on the floor in a manner that gives citizens sufficient notice to communicate with their legislators about the bill.
We support the issuance of a driver’s license or state identification card only to those who are lawful residents of the United States.
We support reforming the mental health system. The needs of patients must be the first priority. This includes diagnosis, comprehensive care, follow-up, and stiff penalties for those who abuse or exploit patients.
We affirm that the State of North Carolina is prohibited from taking discriminatory action against a person based on a religious or moral conviction.
We support efforts to ensure that habitual drug users are not on public assistance. We believe that drug tests are appropriate if there is a reasonable suspicion of illegal drug use.
We affirm that law enforcement should honor detainers for illegal aliens held on criminal charges.

ARTICLE VI. ELECTIONS

The Elections Clause of the US Constitution is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections and appoints states at the primary regulatory authority for the election process. Election laws and policies should ensure honesty and accuracy in all elections.
A free society demands an honest and accurate election process. Our laws and policies at every level of government should ensure that elections are conducted with absolute fairness and integrity, regardless of party registration, race, or socio-economic resources. Every legal vote should count and not be canceled out by illegal votes.
We support legislation requiring election judges at all election sites, including early voting sites. Poll observers should be allowed at every polling place and placed in a position that enables thorough observation. The rights of voters should be equally protected regardless of voting method.
We support enforced statewide procedures for updating voter rolls to ensure accuracy.
Current laws regarding absentee voting should be analyzed and tightened to ensure ballot security. The rights of all voters should be equally protected regardless of voting method.
We encourage election officials to report–and state and federal prosecutors to promptly investigate and prosecute–voter and election fraud.
We support the Electoral College as the Constitutional mode of electing our President and oppose all efforts to abolish it, as a national popular vote would be a grave threat to our federal system.
We support state efforts to ensure ballot access for the elderly, the disabled, military personnel, and all legitimate voters. We support laws with strict requirements regarding the postmark and return of absentee ballots by election date except as otherwise required by federal law.
We reaffirm our support of Voter ID and oppose the reinstatement of straight-ticket voting. Proof of citizenship should be required when registering to vote.
Voters should have timely information on candidates’ campaign finances. We oppose funding election campaigns with public or foreign funds.
Neither the State Board of Elections nor the county boards of elections have the authority to accept private monetary donations for the purpose of administering elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis.

ARTICLE VII. EDUCATION

We support an educational system that provides all children access to an education that empowers them to reach their highest, God-given potential, allowing them to contribute to the betterment of our society. A North Carolina high school diploma should fully prepare students to enter college, technical school, or the workforce.
We believe education policies and budget decisions are best made by local and state governments, rather than national agencies, to ensure that North Carolina students graduate with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in today’s global economy. The people of North Carolina support the highest, most rigorous educational standards that are developed through legislation by the NC General Assembly. All standards and reforms should aim to improve student achievement.
We support English as the official language of the United States. Therefore, we support the expedited use of English as a Second Language in the classroom as an assimilation tool.
Parents have the right to expect excellent public education. Parents also have the right and responsibility to direct their children’s education, while students have the obligation to learn. Allowing choice and competition in education drives all schools towards quality outcomes. We applaud the expansion of vocational curricula and parent choice in North Carolina. We support maintaining and expanding opportunity scholarships and education savings accounts that support the education of children with disabilities and open doors for students in need. All education dollars for grades K-12 dispersed by the state should follow the student to whatever education choice is made by the parents; be it public, charter, or private.
We urge the NC General Assembly to enact legislation guaranteeing parental rights over sex and health education in NC. Parents must have access to all curricula and data about their children, including content that is stored electronically. Schools should not ask children to answer offensive or intrusive personal questionnaires without parental consent. We oppose sex education in public schools without parental consent. Public schools should not be permitted to teach children about homosexual behavior and gender identity. No birth control devices or drugs should be distributed in public schools. We support teaching abstinence until marriage as the expected norm for sexual behavior. Biological males should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports.
We applaud the Republican led North Carolina General Assembly for consistently increasing teacher pay. Teacher compensation should be based on evaluations and market conditions. Teacher evaluations should be based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, educational training, job longevity, administration-based performance measures, and student achievement.
We support teaching civil liberties and patriotism as an important part of becoming a good citizen. We support regular recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, displays of the American and North Carolina State flag, and use of our national motto “In God We Trust”. Curricula must include civics so that students will be prepared to vote as informed citizens. We oppose curriculum that seeks to divide students based on race or gender. Instead, curricula should promote the unity of all students around American values such as liberty, justice and opportunity for all, and should encourage students to join together against all forms of oppression and injustice.
We believe in religious freedom and support the right of students and faculty to pray in school without censorship, as well as the respect for all religions. Schools should revitalize the Judeo-Christian values of Western civilization and teach American Exceptionalism.
We encourage both state and federal governments to help prospective students understand the real costs of lending and allow students to discharge their debts according to market principles. We support economic assistance for students that comes from both private and public sources using market lending principles.
We applaud the efforts of the Republican led General Assembly in supporting community colleges, as these colleges truly open doors and remove barriers to accessible, high-quality education for all citizens. Community colleges play a vital role in developing our workforce and they provide much needed basic literacy programs, vocational training, and university transfer options for students from all walks of life.
We believe it is a requirement of the state and county Boards of Education to ensure all schools provide a safe learning environment. Schools should provide a level of security which protects students and faculty from harm, consistent with the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

ARTICLE VIII. JUSTICE

One of the main duties of government is to maintain law and order, while securing for its citizens the freedom to pursue the blessings of liberty and the fruits of their labor.
e honor the men and women in uniform who protect citizens of North Carolina at home and abroad. We are grateful for our state and local law enforcement as well as our first responders for their public service to our citizens.
We call for mandatory sentencing for all violent crimes, especially crimes committed against those who are charged with protecting us. We support the death penalty for first-degree murder. Suppliers of illegal drugs should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Those who drive or operate a water craft while impaired must face stiff punishment. We support the diversion of first-time, nonviolent offenders to community sentencing, accountability courts, drug courts, veteran treatment courts, and guidance by faith-based institutions with proven track records of rehabilitation. We call for the examination of mandatory sentencing for non-violent crimes to ensure fairness and justice in its application.
We believe the state must protect the rights of victims and their families. We believe in a justice system that provides for restorative justice when applicable. Criminal justice reforms that reduce relapses by former offenders and assist them in seeking reentry as contributing members of society are applauded, including support for transitional housing and employment for recently released inmates.
Millions of lives are destroyed by predatory criminals that exploit children or other innocents via the internet or in person. We deplore pornography, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and the abduction, abuse, and exploitation of children, both born and unborn. We denounce domestic violence. We applaud the efforts of government to protect innocent lives from predators everywhere.
Prisons should focus on security, education, rehabilitation, and labor. Public officials must regain control of their correctional institutions so that every inmate is protected against cruel or degrading treatment. We encourage opportunities for literacy, vocational education, and substance abuse counseling to prepare prisoners for release into the community.
We support tort reform, including a cap on awards for pain and suffering, and structured payments of awards for lost income.

ARTICLE IX. THE ENVIRONMENT

As we are stewards of our God-given natural heritage, we have a duty to protect and wisely use the earth’s resources.
We support reasonable measures to keep our air, water, and soil free of substances that harm the health of our people as well as that of domestic animals and wildlife. We support the maintenance of adequate wildlife habitat, but not at the expense of further loss of private property.
We support a robust system of local, state and national parks to give our citizens access to nature.
We recognize that the theories of global warming and climate change are subject to scientific debate. We urge that both sides of this debate listen and engage with respect, and that drastic action that would raise energy costs and impair our citizens’ quality of life not be undertaken without careful consideration and a thorough evaluation of scientific data.

ARTICLE X. FEDERAL POLICY

The US Constitution is the supreme law of this land. As such, it outlines the foundational principles of this great nation. These principles include a legislature which creates laws, an executive who enforces laws, and a judiciary which interprets laws. To this end, we support the separation of powers and all efforts to maintain independent branches of government, based on a strict interpretation of the constitution’s original intent.
We call on Congress, the President and the courts to abide by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which were added to order to protect the rights of the States and the people. We oppose encroachment upon all powers that the Constitution has reserved to the States or to the people. On the basis of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers, we oppose statehood for the District of Columbia.
Membership in treaties and organizations should never dilute our sovereign right to govern or interfere in our electoral process. We oppose attempts by foreign governments and international organizations to infringe on our sovereignty.
A republican form of government is the foundation of freedom. We support the Electoral College as the constitutional mode of electing our President. We oppose tyranny in all of its forms.
Opposition to slavery is the foundation for the Republican Party. We oppose slavery, including human trafficking, in any form both foreign and domestic.
National security is one of the first and most important roles of government. We support a foreign policy of peace through strength that is accomplished with a strong military with the full gratitude and resources of the United States. Strength only exists when our borders are secure and our enemies deterred.
We oppose granting permanent resident status for those who, by violating the immigration law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it. Granting amnesty only rewards and encourages more law breaking. Employers should only hire those legally allowed to work in the United States.
We support policies which uphold the nation of Israel as a sovereign nation and Jerusalem as its capital.
We support free market solutions for societal issues, which provide the most efficient use of our resources. We support an individual’s ability to choose market-based solutions to retirement, health care and insurance, worker’s rights or any goods.
We support the principle of a “sound money” policy to sustain a stable US currency. The Comptroller General of the General Office of Accounting must perform an annual accounting of the Federal Reserve to ensure its transparency and accountability.
We support policies protecting all innocent human life, and therefore we oppose government efforts promoting abortion and infanticide. We support actions that prohibit the distribution of federal funds to any organization that promotes or provides abortions.
We are free because of those who have answered the call to serve. Our nation’s veterans have been our nation’s strength and remain a national resource. America has a sacred trust with our veterans, and we are committed to ensuring their and their families’ care and dignity.

CONCLUSION

Thomas Jefferson said that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. We, the North Carolina Republican Party, are committed to remaining vigilant as we stand guard to protect the freedoms, we hold dear. Ronald Reagan stated that a strong Republican Party is like a stool that stands on three legs: strong defense, free enterprise, and strong moral values. Together, we will turn back the tide of socialism and preserve our nation as beacon of liberty, hope, and opportunity for all.

This document was adopted by the 2022 NCGOP Convention.