Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand has no regrets.

The Fayetteville Democrat said he does not think it was a problem that the legislature didn't consider a number of Republican-sponsored measures, such as constitutional amendments on eminent domain and gay marriage, during the short session.

"The Republican Party has existed for 148 years," he said. "I suspect it can wait until January for anything we didn't do."

Abraham Lincoln was unavailable for comment. 

Opponents of same-sex marriage are making another attempt to amend the state's constitution to ensure such unions do not become law in North Carolina.

Today, they announced new legislation that gives voters the opportunity to vote for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as "the union of one man and one woman at one time," Dan Kane reports.

Several Republican lawmakers at a news conference today said the recent court decision in California throwing out that state's ban on same-sex marriages makes it urgent that lawmakers take up the legislation. North Carolina law already prevents same-sex marriages.

"We think because of the importance of marriage, as the real building block of our society, we feel that the people of North Carolina deserve the right to vote on should our constitution be amended to make sure that someone's lawsuit filed somewhere in our state, that falls upon the ears of a favorable judge, can not be used to invalidate the law of this state," said Rep. David Lewis, a Harnett County Republican.

No Democrats attended the conference, but supporters provided a list of 66 House members, including several Democrats, who have signed on as sponsors. House and Senate leaders, however, have blocked efforts in the past several years to bring the referendum legislation to the floor for a full vote.

More after the jump.

   Comments (1)

Republicans object to the so-called "sin taxes."

At a press conference this morning, Republican leaders of the state House and Senate said that the state budget should not raise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.

"In tough economic times, it is not the time to raise taxes, particularly the taxes that hit the poorest people," said Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger.

He called the governor's budget "an attempt at legacy building."

For their budget priorities, Berger and House Minority Leader Paul Stam called for cutting spending, completely ending the annual transfer from the Highway Trust Fund, putting a roads bond before voters in November and not raising any state taxes.

On non-budget items, they called for lifting the cap on charter schools, putting constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and curtailing the use of eminent domain before voters, making the murder of an unborn child a crime and ending the de facto moratorium on the death penalty.

Fred Smith says a proposed amendment is not "anti-gay marriage."

In several posts, Dome has referred to a constitutional amendment supported by the Republican gubernatorial candidate as "banning gay marriage."

But Smith said that's not accurate. He argues that the amendment would allow voters to decide whether to amend the constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

"There's a lot of relationships that that law would say are not legal," he said. "Polygamy, bigamy — just look at what's going on down in Texas — all that other stuff would be prohibited."

He says the law is meant to prevent a "liberal Superior Court judge" from overturning the state's marriage statutes.

"The law is not meant to be anti-anything," he said. "The law is a positive law meant to define marriage exactly the way it is in our statutes today."

Smith said that every other Southern state has voted on a similar amendment.

U.S. Rep. David Price says earmarks have gotten a bad rap.

In a speech before the Cary Chamber of Commerce this morning, the Chapel Hill Democrat said the recent debate over Congressional earmarks has blown them out of proportion.

Price said the total amount of money spent on earmarked projects is about 1 percent of the federal budget. The bigger problems with spending are the Iraq war, Medicare and Social Security, he said.

A professor of political science, Price argued that the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress "the power of the purse," including the right to direct spending. He cited several local projects, including a town water reclamation facility, that were needed.

The issue with earmarks is not spending, since most of the money would be appropriated anyway, he said. Instead, he said, it has been a lack of transparency and "road to nowhere" projects that were not worthy.

Still, he said, there is "a fair amount of exaggeration" about earmarks.

"This earmark process has become kind of a bugaboo and it's going to figure in some of the campaigns," he said. "Everybody should take a deep breath."

Today in Bob Orr 101: Article III of the state Constitution, which lists the powers of the executive branch, including those that deal with administrative agencies, such as the N.C. Board of Transportation.

Orr said in a press conference this morning that nothing in the Constitution would prohibit the elimination of the board.

A campaign volunteer handed a copy of the Constitution to Orr to verify the claim.

"It's in my heart," Orr said in response to a question of whether he carries around the document in his pocket.

Orr said, however, that he would not eliminate the board because of the value in members advocating for their regions.

In another reference to the Constitution, he said the final decision in the transportation project approval process would have to fall under the executive powers granted to the governor and appointees.

Previously: Orr 101: Imperiled Education

Today in Bob Orr 101: Article I, Section 15 and Article IX, Section 2 of the state Constitution, which together guarantee every student the right to a "sound basic education."

In Hoke County Board of Education v. State in 2004, the Supreme Court found that low test scores showed that the state had failed to sufficiently educate the students in several counties.

Then-justice Orr wrote the majority opinion, citing the 1997 Leandro case, which defined a sound education as sufficient knowledge of math, science, geography, history, economics and politics as well as the skills to go to college or compete for a job.

Orr wrote that the time and money spent by the state during the decade-long case could have instead gone toward more teachers, books and programs.

"Ten classes of students as of the time of this opinion will have already passed through our state's school system without benefit of relief," he wrote. "We cannot similarly imperil even one more class unnecessarily."

Previously: Orr 101: Incentives at the Country Club

Bob Orr cited the constitution in one of his most passionate responses.

The former Supreme Court justice noted at today's debate that he wrote the majority opinion in the Hoke County Board of Education v. State case, which fleshed out the educational guarantees of the Leandro case.

He then noted that the state constitution puts the State Board of Education in charge of schools, something he has suggested changing. Only two elected officials sit on the board—the lieutenant governor and the state treasurer.

"If you think, as the other candidates have said, that we have a failing school system, that the dropout issue, the achievement gap issue has been neglected, then you need to ask what political leaders are accountable for that," he said.

Orr, who was sitting between Beverly Perdue and Richard Moore, put it more visually, pointing with his hands palms' up as he said the officials—"one to my left and one to my right"—have been on the board for seven years, so they bear responsibility for problems with public schools.

He earned applause from the audience, though moderator Gerald Owens then reminded Orr that the candidates were not supposed to attack each other personally in the debate.

"I'm just quoting the constitution," he said.

(For those keeping track, Orr mentioned the constitution 28 minutes and 36 seconds into the debate.)

Welcome to Bob Orr 101: The Constitution and the Governor's Race 2008. Please have a seat.

Today, we'll be discussing Article V, Section 2(7), of the state Constitution, which says the state may appropriate money to a business only for "public purposes."

In Maready v. Winston Salem in 1996, the Supreme Court found in a 5-2 vote that cash and tax breaks given to 24 companies in Forsyth County met that test because they created jobs and helped the tax base grow.

Orr, then a Supreme Court justice, disagreed, saying the incentives were "corporate welfare."

"If a potential corporate entity is considering a move to Winston-Salem but will only come if country club memberships are provided for its executives, do we sanction the use of tax revenue to facilitate the move?" he wrote.

According to Orr, the recruitment of corporations through incentives only provided minimal job and tax base growth and hurt small communities that can't compete.

He also said the expenditures failed "the ultimate test for determining public purpose" by benefiting special interests as opposed to the public in general.