Recommended Action Adopt Consent Agenda: Fill & Download for Free

Which International Law prohibits a sovereign nation to exercise rights of governance over its own dominion? J & K acceded to India on Oct 26, 1947 through an Instrument of Accession.“The accession was final and irrevocable. There was no question of a conditional acceptance by the Governor General for the simple reason that the legal framework defined for the future of the princely states under the Indian Independence Act did not have any provision for a conditional accession.”[1]The special provisions of temporary nature were allowed by the Constituent Assembly in view of the on going fighting with Pakistani intruders and undue and unsolicited haste of our Late prime Minister Nehru to refer the matter to UN when nobody asked him to do so (except his confidante Mountbatten). J & K is integral part of India since 1954 as approved by Constituent Assembly of J & K despite Machiavelllian machinations of Nehru-Abdullah to secure special status for J & K as a personal ambition through Delhi Agreement of 1952.[2][3]It is a fallacy to suggest that the United Nations was charged with the responsibility of deciding on the status of Jammu and Kashmir. India took the matter of Pakistan’s aggression against Jammu and Kashmir to the United Nations, after the State had become a part of India in terms of a perfectly legally executed accession in accordance with the terms of the Indian Independence Act. [4]The resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, which India endorsed, required that first Pakistan withdraw from the territories it had seized. Only after this and other conditions spelt out in the resolution had been completed was there any question of any plebiscite being considered. Pakistan has still not complied with the preliminary conditions of the resolutions and continues to occupy the territory of Jammu and Kashmir.[5]The UN Resolutions lapsed with refusal of Pakistan to vacate PoK and permit plebiscite (through Plebiscite Administration) under Indian supervision. [6]“A. Restoration of peace and order1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen andPakistani nationals notnormally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusioninto the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;2. The Government of India should:(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council'sresolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of thefighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawingtheir own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required forthe support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;(c) When the Indian forces have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange inconsultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces.14. The Government of India should ensure that….(c) Minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection. (Abdullah Govt failed to protect Hindu and Sikh minorities leading to their exodus)It was further eroded when UN representative Sir Owen Dixon reported that:“Observing from Sir Owen Dixon's report that themain points of difference preventing agreement between the parties were:(a) The procedure for and the extent of demilitarization of the State preparatory to the holding of a plebiscite,and(b) The degree of control over the exercise of the functions of government in the State necessary to ensure a freeand fair plebiscite,” Calls upon the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Representative to the fullest degree in effectingthe demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;[7] [8] [9]The Most important aspect was planned demilitarisation with complete withdrawal of Pakistan but permitting Indian Forces for protection of the inhabitants and plebiscite administration besides non-violation of Ceasefire.8. Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to ensure that their agreement regarding the cease-fire shallcontinue to be faithfully observed and calls upon them to take all possible measures to ensure the creation andmaintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations and to refrain fromany action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement;[10]This was comprehensively broken by Pakistan in 1965 by another attempt to annex Jammu & Kashmir. This led to UNSC Resolution 211 calling upon peaceful resolution of the political problem after withdrawal of all armed personnel to Ceasefire Line.“Convinced that an early cessation of hostilities is essential as a first step towards a peaceful settlement of the outstanding differences between the two countries on Kashmir and other related matters, 1. Demands that a cease-fire should take effect on Wednesday, 22 September 1965, at 0700 hours GMT, and calls upon both Governments to issue orders for a cease-fire at that moment and a subsequent withdrawal of all armed personnel to the positions held by them before 5 August 1965;4. Decides to consider, as soon as paragraph 1 of Council resolution 210(1965) has been implemented, what steps could be taken to assist towards a settlement of the political problem underlying the present conflict, and in the meantime calls on the two Governments to utilize all peaceful means, including those listed in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, to this end;”[11]Lapse of UNSC Resolutions as Ineffective. The UN Resolutions had, in the words of Gunnar Jarring and Dr. Frank Graham lost their relevance to the question as far back as 1957-58. In his report to the Council in 1957 Gunnar Jarring said "..The Council will, furthermore, be aware of the fact that the implementation of international agreements of an ad hoc character, which has not been achieved fairly speedily, may become progressively more difficult because the situation with which they were to cope has tended to change...”Dr. Frank Graham , the UNCIP’s representative stated in March 1958 "...the execution of the provisions of the resolution of 1948 might create more serious difficulties than were foreseen at the time the parties agreed to that. Whether the UN representative would be able to reconstitute the status quo which it had obtained ten years ago would seem to be doubtful.[12]Since 1972 Shimla Agreement it became a bilateral issue.“That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.”[13]It was reiterated in 1999 by Vajpayee-Sharif Pact (Lahore Declaration).“Have agreed that their respective Governments: shall intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. Shall intensify their composite and integrated dialogue process for an early and positive outcome of the agreed bilateral agenda.”[14]This bilateralism was broken in 1999 itself by Pakistani aggression to occupy Kargil heights leading to Kargil War.Indian Parliament has resolved to reclaim PoK, Gilgit-Baltistan to the State of J & K in 1994.Following increasing terrorist violence and Pakistan’s attempts to highlight the Kashmir dispute, both houses of the Indian Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution on February 22, 1994, emphasizing that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India, and that Pakistan must vacate parts of the State under its occupation. On behalf of the People of India, Firmly declares that-(a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;(b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity; and demands that -(c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression; and resolves that -(d) all attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely."[15]Pakistan has no locus standi now except vacating PoK and Gilgit -Baltistan and returning Aksai Chin illegally ceded to China. Article 370 dealing with Governance of J & K is Internal Matter. Read some more."First, why was Article 370 inserted in the Constitution? Or as the great poet and thinker, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, asked in the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949: "Why this discrimination please?" The answer was given by Nehru's confidant; the wise but misunderstood Thanjavur Brahmin, Gopalaswami Ayyangar (Minister without portfolio in the first Union Cabinet, a former Diwan to Maharajah Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, and the principal drafter of Article 370). Ayyangar argued that for a variety of reasons, Kashmir, unlike other princely states, was not yet ripe for integration. India had been at war with Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir and while there was a ceasefire, the conditions were still "unusual and abnormal”. Part of the State's territory was in the hands of "rebels and enemies”.[16]In fact, today the autonomy enjoyed by the State is a shadow of its former self, and there is virtually no institution of the Republic of India that does not include J&K within its scope and jurisdiction. The only substantial differences from many other States relate to permanent residents and their rights; the non-applicability of Emergency provisions on the grounds of "internal disturbance" without the concurrence of the State; and the name and boundaries of the State, which cannot be altered without the consent of its legislature. Remember J&K is not unique; there are special provisions for several States which are listed in Article 371 and Articles 371-A to 371-I.Can Article 370 be revoked unilaterally? Clause 3 of Article 370 is clear. The President may, by public notification, declare that this Article shall cease to be operative but only on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State.In other words, Article 370 can be revoked only if a new Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir is convened and is willing to recommend its revocation. Of course, Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution to change this provision. But this could be subject to a judicial review which may find that this clause is a basic feature of the relationship between the State and the Centre and cannot, therefore, be amended".What does the Latest Govt Order 272 say?[17]NOTIFICATIONNew Delhi, the 5th August, 2019G.S.R .551(E).- the following Order made by the President is published for general information:-THE CONSTITUTION (APPLICATION TO JAMMU AND KASHMIR) ORDER, 2019C.O. 2721. (1) This Order may be called the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019.(2) It shall come into force at once, and shall thereupon supersede the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 as amended from time to time.Hence it supersedes the 1954 Government Order which provided Article 370 as Special Provision (Temporary).It also supersedes and alters the provisions as under:(b) references to the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadar-i-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office, shall be construed as references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir;(c) references to the Government of the said State shall be construed as including references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of his Council of Ministers; and(d) in proviso to clause (3) of article 370 of this Constitution, the expression "Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)" shall read "Legislative Assembly of the State"."What was the Temporariness of Article 370?Article 370 of the Constitution of IndiaTemporary Provisions with respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir1. Notwithstanding anything in this constitution:(a) The provisions of Article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.For the purposes of this Article, the Govt of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President as Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir acting on the advice of the council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja’s Proclamation dated the fifty day of March 1948.(3) Notwithstanding the anything in the foregoing provisions of the article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this Article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may notify.Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in Clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.How has this been notified and managed?The Presidential Order 1954 itself has been superseded. PM (Sadar-e-Riyasat) of J & K has been replaced by Governor.As a Union Territory, J & K will have Legislative Assembly. Governor shall represent the Maharaja and his Sadar-e-Riyasat. Consituent Assembly shall be represented by the Council of Ministers as advising currently to the Governor.Now President has notified annulment of Temporary Provisions of Article 370 (Under provisions of Section 3) and modified the Government Order of 1954 which has been placed in the Parliament for approval (Passed now). Governor re-designated as the Sadar-e-Riyasat will approve it on behalf the Constituent Assembly (having been duly consulted already) as advised by the Council of Ministers (re-designated as Legislative Assembly). Later the Legislative Assembly shall also approve the Order of the Governor to seal the legal process. Delimitation and separation of Ladakh would ensure that the majority is Jammu dominant as per actual electoral college representation while Ladakh runs efficiently like Chandigarh Administration.Where is the scope for International intervention in internal matters of Indian Constitution?Post Script:In an indication of the shifting geopolitical dynamics in the region, the South China Morning Post, a Chinese state media, posted an article on August 1 referring to Ladakh as part of the “Indian State of Jammu &Kashmir” instead of its earlier stance of mentioning J&K as a “disputed territory between India and Pakistan.”Amid the troop buildup in Jammu & Kashmir, the Chinese Government also withdrew 60 engineers from the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor with the help of Pakistani Defence forces in the wee hours of Friday.The Chinese move assumes significance as Ladakh is also referred to as “Little Tibet” due to the local inhabitants following Tibetan Buddhism.[18]On August 6, the Chinese foreign ministry offered two separate comments: one “on the Current Situation in Jammu Kashmir” and another more specifically “on the Indian Government’s Announcement of the Establishment of the Ladakh Union Territory Which Involves Chinese Territory”.In the first statement, while China declares that it is “seriously concerned” it asks “both India and Pakistan to peacefully resolve the relevant disputes through dialogue and consultation” (emphasis mine). One should read this as the Chinese indicating they do not see it only as an Indian responsibility to “safeguard peace and stability in the region”, that Islamabad should not imagine it has sanction from Beijing to stoke military tensions in the wake of New Delhi’s actions. It could, therefore, be reasonably argued that a change in the status of J&K is not a major concern for China in so far as it involves Pakistan.[19]A day after the Centre scrapped Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and divided the former state into two Union Territories, there is once again a call from Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan for its integration with Ladakh region in India. There have long been protests in Gilgit-Baltistan with people demanding that the region be made part of Jammu and Kashmir. Senge H Sering, an activist in Gilgit-Baltistan, said as per ANI, “Home Minister Amit Shah has said that PoJK is an integral part of Jammu and Kashmir. We believe Gilgit-Baltistan is an integral part of J&K. We are an extension of Ladakh and we ask for our rights in the constitutional framework of India”[20]The United States has said India's decision to revoke Article 370, which gave a special status to Kashmir, was the country's "internal matter" and called for peace in the region. This comes as a blow to Pakistan's diplomatic effort to raise international concern over the developments in India.[21]Russia says Article 370 move backed by Constitution, asks India, Pakistan to take diplomatic route"We proceed from fact that the changes associated with the change in the status of the state of J&K and its division into two union territories are carried out within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of India," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia added.Earlier, the United States had called on India and Pakistan to maintain restraint and hold direct dialogue to resolve their differences. The US said there was no change in its policy of Kashmir being a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan and added that it is up to the two countries to decide on the pace and scope of the talks on the issue.[22]Kashmir is not Afghanistan: Taliban rebukes Pakistan, calls for peace in regionTaliban has slammed Pakistan for linking heightened tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir with the situation in Afghanistan.Urging India and Pakistan not to turn Afghanistan into the 'theater of competition between other countries', Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahed said, "Linking the issue of Kashmir with that of Afghanistan by some parties will not aid in improving the crisis at hand because the issue of Afghanistan is not related."In a statement released on Thursday, Taliban also urged India and Pakistan to refrain from taking steps that could pave a way for "violence and complications" in the region.[23]UN secretary general expresses concern over restrictions, urges restraint/UN Security Council Chief Refuses To Comment On Pak Letter On Article 370In Thursday’s statement, Dujarric invoked the 1972 Simla Agreement to repeat the request for “maximum restraint”. “The Secretary-General also recalls the 1972 Agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan, also known as the Simla Agreement, which states that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is to be settled by peaceful means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,” he said.[24]UN Security Council or UNSC President Joanna Wronecka on Thursday refused to comment on Pakistan's letter to the world body regarding abrogation of Article 370 by India that granted a special status to Jammu and Kashmir.[25]The World has moved on except few ideologically aligned supporters of Islamic Nations such as Contact Group of OIC on Kashmir."The Contact Group condemned India's recent illegal and unilateral steps, aimed at undermining the demographics and the disputed nature of the Jammu and Kashmir in contravention of the relevant UN resolutions, which seriously imperil regional peace and security," the foreign office said. The Contact Group on Jammu & Kashmir was formed in 1994 to coordinate policy of the OIC on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Azerbaijan, Niger, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are its members.[26]Ministry of External Affairs met with all the ambassadors of the P-5 countries – the US, the UK, France, Russia and China – to meet with senior level officials at South Block. And then later in the day, expanded to one on one meetings with other strategic countries such as Australia and Indonesia as well.Footnotes[1] Fact Sheet on Jammu & Kashmir[2] The Delhi Agreement, 1952[3] https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/polity-1/presidential-order-amending-constitution-application-to-jammu-and-kashmir-order-1954[4] Fact Sheet on Jammu & Kashmir[5] Fact Sheet on Jammu & Kashmir[6] Security Council Resolution 47[7] Security Council Resolution 47[8] Security Council Resolution 80[9] Security Council Resolution 91[10] Security Council Resolution 91[11] https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN%20PK_650920_Security%20Council%20Resolution%20211%20%281965%29.pdf[12] Fact Sheet on Jammu & Kashmir[13] Simla Agreement July 2, 1972[14] Lahore Declaration February, 1999[15] Parliament Resolution on Jammu and Kashmir[16] As Govt Moves to Repeal Article 370, A Look at What the Constitution Says on J&K Special Status[17] Govt proposal on removing Article 370: Full Text[18] https://defenceaviationpost.com/china-changes-tack-calls-jk-indian-state/?fbclid=IwAR2uFRwISDTyLOO3FwQh90qCNdVwt2flgBp9LDvqMQJg9_2yqj-LDn8s5eg[19] J&K Reorganisation | China’s reactions and its implications[20] After Article 370 scrapped in Jammu and Kashmir, calls grow for integration of Gilgit-Baltistan with India | WATCH[21] Article 370 revoked: US says it's India's 'internal matter' in a blow to Pakistan[22] http://Russia says Article 370 move backed by Constitution, asks India, Pakistan to take diplomatic route (https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/article-370-kashmir-russia-india-pakistan-constitution-1579363-2019-08-10)[23] Kashmir is not Afghanistan: Taliban rebukes Pakistan, calls for peace in region[24] Kashmir: UN secretary general expresses concern over restrictions, urges restraint[25] UN Security Council Chief Refuses To Comment On Pak Letter On Article 370[26] Organisation of Islamic Cooperation on J&K Terms Modi Govt’s Decision to Revoke Article 370 ‘Illegal’

Robert Martin you make it somewhat difficult to answer your question since you put no specifications on the question that assists someone with providing you with an informed answer.Being a citizen of the US we do not get to vote on Amendments to the Constitution, therefore, I will not be voting for any Amendments at all.Being a citizen of the State of Texas, there are no Constitutional Amendments on the ballot, which is unusual given that Texans have to change the State Constitution for just about anything from removing the Game Wardens from the Harris County budget to granting the ability to felons to regain the privilege to vote.However, since you are from North Carolina, I am willing to bet you really didn’t want those answers. You are probably wanting to know about your fellow North Carolinian’s opinions on the amendments to North Carolina’s Constitution.I won’t be voting there so I will not vote for or against those amendments; however, I am willing to give you my opinion on the amendments as I understand them.Hunting and FishingThe right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. The people have a right, including the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to laws enacted by the General Assembly and rules adopted pursuant to authority granted by the General Assembly to (i) promote wildlife conservation and management and (ii) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Nothing herein shall be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain."On its surface this seems simply logical. An assertion that people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife using traditional methods. Furthermore, it assures that hunting and fishing are to be used to manage and control wildlife. This is all well and good. It sounds like a great idea.However, the amendment doesn’t explain what “traditional methods” are and it completely leave it open to the General Assembly to make that decision. Also isn’t hunting and fishing already the preferred method of wildlife management in the state?Why make this assurance now, unless there is an ulterior motive? It appears to me that this amendment is a push by the Republican controlled General Assembly to push an agenda. I wouldn’t buy it, VOTE NO, and maintain things as they are. If the General Assembly changes hands this opens the door for that dreaded Gun Control that Conservatives are afraid Democrats want (hint: they don’t). On the other hand, if the Republicans keep control nothing changes.What is the point of this amendment, unless it is a political ploy.Crime Victims(1) Basic rights. Victims of crime or acts of delinquency shall be treated with dignity and respect by the criminal justice system.(1a) Enumerated rights. When the crime or act of delinquency is one against or involving the person of the victim or is equivalent to a felony property crime, the victim is entitled to the following rights:(a) The right upon request to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of court proceedings of the accused.(a1) The right upon request to be present at court proceedings of the accused.(b) The right to be reasonably heard at any court proceeding involving the plea, conviction, adjudication, sentencing, or release of the accused.(c) The right to receive restitution in a reasonably timely manner, when ordered by the court.(d) The right to be given information about the crime or act of delinquency, how the criminal justice system works, the rights of victims, and the availability of services for victims.(e) The right upon request to receive information about the conviction, adjudication, or final disposition and sentence of the accused.(f) The right upon request to receive notification of escape, release, proposed parole or pardon of the accused, or notice of a reprieve or commutation of the accused's sentence.(g) The to present the victim's views and concerns to the Governor or agency considering any action that could result in the release of the accused, prior to such action becoming effective.(h) The right to reasonably confer with the prosecution.(1b) Enforcement of rights. Except as otherwise provided herein, the General Assembly shall further provide, by general law, the procedure whereby a victim may assert the rights provided in this section. The victim or, if the victim is a minor, is legally incapacitated, or deceased, a family member, guardian, or legal custodian may assert the rights provided in this section. The procedure shall be by motion to the court of jurisdiction within the same criminal or juvenile proceeding giving rise to the rights. The victim, family member, guardian, or legal Page 2 Session Law 2018-110 House Bill 551 custodian have the right to counsel at this hearing but do not have the right to counsel provided by the State. If the matter involves an allegation that the district attorney failed to comply with the rights of a victim when obligated to so do by law, the victim must first afford the district attorney with jurisdiction over the criminal action an opportunity to resolve any issue in a timely manner.(2) No money damages; other claims. Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating a claim for money damages, or any cause of action, against the State, a county, a municipality, or any of the agencies, instrumentalities, or officers and employees thereof.(3) No ground for relief in criminal case. The failure or inability of any person to provide a right or service provided under this section may not be used by a defendant in a criminal case, an inmate, or any other accused as a ground for relief in any trial, appeal, postconviction litigation, habeas corpus, civil action, or any similar criminal or civil proceeding. Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide grounds for a victim (i) to appeal any decision made in a criminal or juvenile proceeding; (ii) to challenge any verdict, sentence, or adjudication; (iii) to participate as a party in any proceeding; or (iv) to obtain confidential juvenile records.(4) No restriction of authority. Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict the power of the district attorney, or the inherent authority of the court.(5) Implementation. The General Assembly may prescribe general laws to further define and implement this section."On its surface, like the previous amendment it seems like a great idea. What gets me though is that every one of these rights is something the victim of the “crime or acts of delinquency” has to request. This isn’t something that the elected officials, or their subordinates simply have to do. They need to work for it. That doesn’t seem fair, given them the right to know what is going on in the case that affects them and require them to demand their right.Besides aren’t these things that all US citizens all already expect to have when a crime is committed against us? Don’t we all get these benefits if ask for them?I am not buying it, there appears to be an ulterior motive by the General Assembly to appear to be “helping” victims, when in reality they aren’t actually changing anything. VOTE NO!Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement Appointments(1) The Bipartisan State Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement shall be established to administer ethics and elections law, as prescribed by general law. The Bipartisan State Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement shall be located within the Executive Branch for administrative purposes only and shall exercise all of its powers independently of the Executive Branch.(2) The Bipartisan State Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement shall consist of eight members, each serving a term of four years, who shall be qualified voters of this State. Of the total membership, no more than four members may be registered with the same political affiliation, if defined by general law. Appointments shall be made by the Governor as follows:(a) Four members upon the recommendation of the leader, as prescribed by general law, of each of the two Senate political party caucuses with the most members. The Governor shall not appoint more than two members from the recommendations of each leader.(b) Four members upon the recommendation of the leader, as prescribed by general law, of each of the two House of Representatives political party caucuses with the most members. The Governor shall not appoint more than two members from the recommendations of each leader.(3) The General Assembly shall enact general laws governing how appointments shall be made if the Governor fails to appoint a member within 10 days of receiving recommendations as required by this section."This one seems to make a lot of sense. If I remember correctly, North Carolina has seen a lot of turmoil between the Governor and the General Assembly in receive years over this board. This places a bit of control on the Governor’s appointments. It makes sense, though I think the “advice and consent” method that the US Senate gives the President makes more sense, but since the General Assembly represents the people of North Carolina this is a reasonably step. VOTE YES!Judicial AppointmentsConstitutional amendment to change the process for filling judicial vacancies that occur between judicial elections from a process in which the Governor has sole appointment power to a process in which the people of the State nominate individuals to fill vacancies by way of a commission comprised of appointees made by the judicial, executive, and legislative branches charged with making recommendations to the legislature as to which nominees are deemed qualified; then the legislature will recommend at least two nominees to the Governor via legislative action not subject to gubernatorial veto; and the Governor will appoint judges from among these nominees.Ok, another that seems reasonable and places a bit of control on the Governor’s power by providing oversight. I am not against that, though again it would make more sense to use the “advice and consent” method rather than the approve and recommend, but to each their own. VOTE YES!Income TaxesConstitutional amendment to reduce the income tax rate in North Carolina to a maximum allowable rate of seven percent (7%).Once again, on the surface this looks like a great idea. Cap the income tax rate to maintain the state budget and protect citizens.However, reality needs to creep in here. The current North Carolina tax rate is 5.49% and is scheduled to decrease to 5% by 2020. This is again one of those Constitutional amendments that actually does nothing. Its only purpose can be to use voters for political gain. Since the GOP controls the General Assembly it would appear to me to be a ploy to manipulate voters into supporting the GOP. Don’t buy their BS and VOTE NO!Photo ID Voter IdentificationConstitutional amendment to require voters to provide photo identification before voting in person.Anyone that has read any of my answers on this subject knows where I stand on this. No one has managed to provide a single shred of evidence that in-person voter fraud actually sways elections. Mail-in voter fraud does, especially in local elections, but this amendment only impacts in-person voting. In the State of Texas, our Governor Greg Abbott served 13 years to the Attorney General. During that time over 52 million ballots were cast and he successfully convicted 1 person. That is an occurrence rate of 1 in 52 million or 0.000000019%. Is that really worth spending millions of state funds to fix? There is a reason I call this a solution in search of a problem.Once again, this is an effort to use North Carolinians for political gain. Don't buy into their BS by VOTING NO! Don’t let yourself be used in that way, and instead encourage your fellow citizens to get out there and vote.I know this is long, but bottom line is if it looks like you are being used by one political party or another to gain political advantage in such a way that changes nothing, or harms the fabric our your state’s electorate VOTE NO, on the other hand, if it helps to limit the abuses of power by your elected officials VOTE YES!

TL;DRYes, and in 1861 Southerners were more than happy to explain why slavery was the issue.The key to your question is "most important" reason. There were, of course, multiple reasons and causes for the Civil War. However, slavery was the root cause. The words of Southerners in their secession declarations are some of the best primary sources: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." South Carolina"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation." GeorgiaA Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.Texas:The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.The Constitution of Alabama ratified January 7,1861SLAVERYSection 1. No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country.Section 2. The humane treatment of slaves shall be secured by law.Section 3. Laws may be enacted to prohibit the introduction into this State, of slaves who have committed high crimes in other States or territories, and to regulate or prevent the introduction of slaves into this State as merchandise.Section 4. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes, of a higher grade than petit larceny, the General Assembly shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petiti jury.Section 5. Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave.In order to find a compromise that might persuade the secession leaning states in the Union Senator John Crittenden of Kentucky proposed amendments in a desperate attempt to reassure the Southern states.Amendments Proposed in Congress by Senator John J. Crittenden : December 18, 1860Whereas, serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States; and whereas it is eminently desirable and proper that these dissensions, which now threaten the very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions, which shall do equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the people that peace and good will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States: Therefore,Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following articles be, and are hereby, proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution, when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the several States:ARTICLE I.In all the territory of the United States now held, or hereafter acquired, situated north of latitude 36° 30', slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance. And when any Territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress according to the then Federal ratio of representation of the people of the United States, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new State may provide.ARTICLE II.Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves.ARTICLE III.Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibit officers of the Federal Government, or members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them their slaves, and holding them as such, during the time their duties may require them to remain there, and afterward taking them from the District.ARTICLE IV.Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by the sea.ARTICLE V.That in addition to the provisions of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, Congress shall have power to provide by law, and it shall be its duty so to provide, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave in all cases when the marshal or other officer whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by force, the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his fugitive slave under the said clause of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitive, they shall have the right, in their own name, to sue the county in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, and to recover from it, with interest and damages, the amount paid by them for said fugitive slave. And the said county, after it has paid said amount to the United States may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the wrongdoers or rescuers by whom the owner was prevented from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as the owner himself might have sued and recovered.ARTICLE VI.No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding articles; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution and no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is, or may be allowed or permitted.And whereas, also, besides these causes of dissension embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States, there are others which come within the jurisdiction of Congress, as far as its power will extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, and threaten the stability of its institutions: Therefore,1. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, that the slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be repealed, or so modified or changed as to impair their efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the punishment of those who attempt by rescue of the slave, or other illegal means, to hinder or defeat the clue execution of said laws,2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive slave acts of Congress, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or which, in their operation, impede, hinder, or delay the free course and due execution of any of said acts, are null and void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States; yet those State laws, void as they are, have given color to practice, and led to consequences which have obstructed the due administration and execution of acts of Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the discord and commotion now prevailing. Congress, therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem it improper respectfully and earnestly to recommend the repeal of those laws to the several States which have enacted them, or such legislative corrections or explanations of them as may prevent their being used or perverted to such mischievous purposes.3. That the act of the 18th of September, 1850, commonly called the fugitive slave law, ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act equal in amount, in the cases decided by claimant. And to avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section of said act which authorizes the person holding a warrant for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave, to summon to his aid the posse comitatus, and which declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist hen in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall be resistance or danger of resistance or rescue.4, That the laws for the suppression of the African slave-trade and especially those prohibiting the importation of slaves in the United States, ought to be made effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed; and all further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be promptly made.As you can see Tariffs, economic inequities, and the other usual suspects trotted out today as causes for the war were not addressed by Crittenden. So it's clear that what he really thought would dissuade the Slave states from seceding.Finally, let's look at the words of Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens the Confederacy's President and Vice President surely would speak with authority on what they were fighting for in separating from the United States."In the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the wellbeing and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slaveholding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man." Jefferson Davis April 29,1861"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Alexander Stephens March 21, 1861.As you can see, slavery was first and foremost on the minds of Southerners as they made the decision to secede. They were proud of it in 1861. Now Southern apologists, Neo-Confederates and those just ignorant of history will use any of the more minor reasons and causes to distract from this truth. Slavery was the root cause. Real actual Confederates knew it when they started it, and were more than happy to explain it as they lead the nation into war over slavery.