Original Intent

There is a theory of judicial review holding that judges should determine the meaning of the US Constitution on the basis of "original intent."

I always thought that was a bit flaky, especially since the drafters of the constitution kept no official journal of the proceedings. No minutes. No agreement among the participants as to the purpose and intent of each passage. No record of the debates.

So how can we deduce "original intent?"

On a smaller scale, we have had much speculation about why the NC State Legislature decided to insist on tolls for our commuter ferries.

That particular sausage was made behind closed doors, and the reasons were not debated or communicated to the Department of Transportation.

So we are left to guess at the original intent. But some participants have given a few hints. Here are various theories, conjectures and explanations:

1. The legislature was faced with a large deficit and had to do something to reduce it. This is something. Therefore they had to do it.

Comment: a) The legislature didn't do this. Only the Republican members of the General Assembly did it. b) Governor Perdue's budget would have been equally effective at reducing the deficit;

2. The General Assembly wanted to reduce government. Translation: Republicans in the General Assembly wanted to reduce government services to those who need them;

3. The General Assembly had to look in obscure places to find enough money.

Comment: a) Balderdash! It wasn't about money and it wasn't about deficits. That is plain from the provision that ordered the collection of a certain amount of gross revenue, with no possibility of achieving the same budget figure with DOT economies either with ferries or elsewhere. b) The ordered target of five million dollars in revenue is about two-tenths of one percent of the budget deficit.

4. One astute local observer offers the following explanation: It was an effort by the Republican legislature to slap Governor Perdue and her supporters in Eastern North Carolina without damaging the state's relations with the military hierarchy as a cutback in the highway 70 and highway 17 projects would have.

Comment: a) This is plausible. b) It arguably also avoids arousing the big city residents who want enhanced weekend access to the beaches.

I'm sure there are other explanations. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. When you get 170 legislators working on an appropriations bill, each may have his or her own reasons.

Clearly, the welfare of Pamlico County and her citizens was not among them.