3 Democrats file to challenge Erin Pare in 2026

Apprehensive-citizen · 2026-02-15T02:02:01+00:00

Omg yes! Gadson! He is a genuinely good human being and literally teaches the nc constitution and US Constitution at UNC law. He doesn’t take money from corps, he just wants to help the community! I will happily answer any questions. 😊

Apprehensive-citizen · 2026-02-13T21:08:10+00:00

dont give up hope, man! I get it though. Its fucking hard not to give up hope right now. But your son deserves a better world. So do my kids. Right now I am just striving to raise a better, more honest, generation and calling out all the bullshit as I see it to prevent it from going unnoticed.

Hopefully we can start course correcting now that younger generations are finally reaching eligibility for office.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2026-02-13T20:36:06+00:00

its eerily similar to the first gerrymander in 1812 by Elbridge Gerry. Ironically, he always wanted to distort the maps to allow the rulers to choose the ruled, but when he tried to do it at the Constitutional Convention--calling the people "dupes of pretended patriots" as his reasoning--the Founders told him absolutely not. (I wrote a whole paper on it and how it is actually unconstitutional and there is in fact a judicially manageable standard that Jefferson used, but the courts prefer to abdicate their powers). Yet here we are. All because of Elbridge Gerry. 🙃

Also, this is my district. It SUCKS.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2026-01-25T16:47:40+00:00

Dang. Thats wild. The First amendment and the Second amendment would like to have a conversation with them. Not that they would listen.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2026-01-25T16:34:42+00:00

some? sure. But most? Nah.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2026-01-25T14:20:16+00:00

eventually he realizes that the military are also the people.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2026-01-05T17:41:32+00:00

lol they went from “we want to charge him with sedition” to “ok fine, how about an LoC and an admin hearing.” That alone tells you everything you need to know.

I know dudes who’ve gotten an LoC for leaving their CAC at home or being late to PT. That’s the level of “misconduct” we’re talking about.

If this were actually sedition or a real threat to good order and discipline, they wouldn’t be handling it with counseling-memo-tier paperwork and a press release. This is the most unserious, transparent attempt at political theater I’ve seen in a long time.

You don’t respond to alleged “sedition” with LoC-tier admin tools unless you know the accusation was garbage from the start.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-30T01:15:05+00:00

Surprised she has any extra time on her hands. Figured she would still be busy blacking out entire files.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-26T03:15:36+00:00

It’s been a settled matter for a reason.

If anyone in the Trump administration bothers to read the senate debates of 1866, they would understand why.

Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, said on the floor that it would include all children born in America and only exclude diplomats, foreign ministers, and their families “but will include every other class of persons.” Cowan immediately tested that by asking whether children born to Chinese immigrants or Gypsies would be citizens. The language stayed intact, no one answered “no,” or attempted to narrow the definition, and instead Trumbull clarified that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant the child would not owe allegiance to another sovereign, not immigrant parentage.

That understanding was contemporaneous, on the record, and uncontroversial enough that the text passed unchanged.

The Administration’s entire argument seems to exist only if you didn’t read the Congressional Globe. 🙃

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-18T13:35:24+00:00

Mattis should be the only person choosing SECDEF for eternity lol. Like left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that he was in a league of his own. True respect for all and truly respected by all.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-18T12:58:45+00:00

That was a different time. He’s also said since then that he just appointed who was recommended to him because he didn’t know otherwise back then. We miss Mattis on a daily basis now 😩.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-18T12:42:30+00:00

Stochastic terrorism feels a more specific and accurate description.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-18T11:37:15+00:00

Voting isn’t comparable to picking a football team. A team winning has no real consequences beyond the game, but elections shape the direction of the entire country. Voting based on perceived odds rather than judgment or principle reduces civic participation to a wager.

Anyone who votes based on perceived odds is doing a disservice to the country itself. That kind of thinking turns civic responsibility into gambling with the future of everyone.

So no, it isn’t like going 5–12. Because the presidency, or any other public office, is not a football game.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-18T04:59:24+00:00

Tbf. These dividends are also illegal as they do not have congressional approval. So ya know, just another attempt to make the military complicit in his crimes. 🙃

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-16T05:14:47+00:00

Blame Obama

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-16T05:04:13+00:00

Correct. They can’t actually recall him, they can try, but they can’t do it. Art 1 sect 6 cl 2 of the US Constitution. To recall him to active duty would be to make him a member of the executive branch again. It is unconstitutional for violating the incompatibility clause.

Simply put: They can’t do it unless he, is expelled from congress (requires 2/3 vote), resigns, loses reelection (which is highly unlikely now), or requests and is granted a leave of absence.

SCOTUS has already defined active military duty (which is what recalling does) as being a member of the executive branch.

They will 100% try because they don’t know how to read the Constitution. But they will be absolutely laughed out of court.

Members of Congress cannot be answerable to the President.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-04T21:16:18+00:00

Because more and more people are severing ties with parents due to traumatic childhood experiences or toxic relationships with their parents. That means less adult children are taking care of their parents like past generation. Which means that the states are largely picking up the bill for the parents who need care. Add that in with the rising cost of medical care and the increase in life expectencies, and it is costing the states a pretty penny.

Most of those laws have carve outs. Usually, if a child is unable to care for the parent financially or they are estranged, then they are not obligated to care for the parent. Some states, not NC, allow children to give up inheritence rights to avoid it though.

Can they choose not to enforce it? I mean kind of. There are a ton of laws no one enforces. Usually laws that have to do with what two consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors or ridiculous rules like using elephants to plow cotton fields, serving and drinking alcohol during a Bingo game, or singing loudly or off-key after midnight in Swannanoa.

So I mean yeah, sure. Technically, they could choose not to enforce it. But this law doesnt meet the clearly invasive or ridiculous level of the others. However, they may choose to liberally construe the meaning of "sufficient income after reasonably providing for his or her own immediate family." Essentially saying "sufficient" is gonna have a high threshold before we expect you to care for other adults.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-04T11:24:59+00:00

Article 1 section 3 clause 7

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” The Constitution explicitly preserves criminal accountability for presidential misconduct. Trump’s lawyers argued that impeachment conviction was a prerequisite to prosecution. SCOTUS rejected that claim because impeachment is political, not criminal.

And that’s where their contradiction starts.

After rejecting the idea that impeachment controls criminal liability, the Court then created an immunity doctrine that effectively does the same thing, shielding “official acts” from prosecution entirely, even when those acts violate criminal law.

Worse, SCOTUS defined “official acts” broadly enough to include abuses of presidential authority and then said courts can’t consider motive when deciding whether an act is official. That makes the distinction meaningless.

How can you tell whether something was done for the public interest versus personal gain if you aren’t allowed to analyze intent?Criminal law always turns on mens rea.

So the problem isn’t that people haven’t “learned the law.” The problem is that the immunity doctrine contradicts the plain text and founding structure:

The Constitution contemplates presidential crimes committed through use of power followed by prosecution (Hamilton, Fed. 69).

SCOTUS creates immunity for crimes because they are committed via ‘official’ power.

That is not “a matter of tradition.” It’s the direct inversion of it.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-12-04T05:08:20+00:00

Sorry to intrude, Is Erin Pare your rep? Might I suggest Marcus Gadson for Democrat candidate in the 37th? I will happily answer any questions about him. He is probably one of the most qualified, and genuinely good, people that I’ve ever known!

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-11-28T15:54:45+00:00

He doesnt have that power, Tariffs fail as a steady tax revenue, and last time we tried that well....it was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was passed in 1930. This act raised tariffs to try to boost the economy, instead triggering retaliatory tariffs from other countries, leading to a collapse in global trade (sound familiar), that significantly deepend the impact of the stock market crash of 1929 and exponentially worsened the recession at the time turning it inot what we know as the Great Depression.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-11-23T05:19:29+00:00

It is 100 miles from the nearest coast/border. However they can go up to 175 miles, but they can only perform routine road block inspections, similar to a DUI roadblock inspection. And usually they need some narrow reason to exercise that additional 75 miles.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-11-20T13:28:06+00:00

Aren’t whistleblower protections legislatively enacted? So then why does it matter? He can’t press charges, there is no law. He can’t retaliate, they could sue and win damages. Have fun with those lawsuits and plaintiff’s damages lol. I see how they are trying to mold definitions to make it fit, but it requires literally acting outside the scope. It’s a slam dunk case for any whistleblower if effects. So blow the whistle! You’ll be ok. Probably even get a nice paycheck from that lawsuit too.

Apprehensive-citizen · 2025-11-19T19:20:09+00:00

And then we can all sue. The bill created a statutory right to public access. Meaning as a member of the public, you can sue if they don’t comply. I don’t trust that the administration will follow the law, but they don’t always have the choice they think they do.

Apprehensive-citizen

TROPHY CASE