Posted on 07/15/2018 10:20:35 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Yet, according to CA law ARTICLE 1. General [12500 - 12504] :
No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office.
The California Legislature confirmed Becerra to the post on on January 24, 2017
He was only in 'Active' standing with the state bar for 23 days prior to being sworn in. And of course, this says nothing of the fat that he had to be admitted to practice before the state supreme court for 5 years.
Therefore, if the information that the State of CA has is true and accurate regarding Becerra, he is not lawfully holding the position of Attorney General...if CA law is to be upheld.
But hey...if the NBC clause of the U.S. Constitution can be put aside for a "chosen one"...then what state law can stand in the way of progressive progress?
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article124524459.html
Eric holder hired to work with Becerra to try and impede Trump
Pity the poor judge (well I don't actually), but if he disqualifies Becerra he is toast and if he lets it go without a colorable argument, the court of appeals (or ultimately CA supreme court) gets to smack him down.
Easy! Beccera should simply photoshop a license and post it on the Internet!
Hey! It’s been done before. /s
What about “No Standing”. It worked wonderfully well with a birth certificate.
Here’s hoping it finds Gavin Newsom and Kama Harris.
see #41, thanks rxsid
~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Becerra) was in an “Inactive” status with the CA bar from 01.01.1991 until made “Active” in 01.01.2017.
Yet, according to CA law ARTICLE 1. General [12500 - 12504] :
No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office.
The California Legislature confirmed Becerra to the post on on January 24, 2017
He was only in ‘Active’ standing with the state bar for 23 days prior to being sworn in. And of course, this says nothing of the fat that he had to be admitted to practice before the state supreme court for 5 years.
Therefore, if the information that the State of CA has is true and accurate regarding Becerra, he is not lawfully holding the position of Attorney General...if CA law is to be upheld.
But hey...if the NBC clause of the U.S. Constitution can be put aside for a “chosen one”...then what state law can stand in the way of progressive progress?
Yeah.....but the Cali-Slobbovians are arguing there is precedent for this.
Becerra is not the first Slobbovian to hold the office under these circumstances.
Lawless Governor Moonbeam created a problem for his party, but he's an old white jackass, constrained by term limits (finally!), so he has no political future anyway.
Does Xavier Becerra propose paying all of the skipped licensing fees for the past 27 years or so? NO HARM NO FOUL
Wonder if that works for armed robbers?
Give back the cash and go home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.