Posted on 05/05/2009 6:04:34 PM PDT by plenipotentiary
An example of what to do with a DA who refuse to do his duty.
§ 7A‑66. Removal of district attorneys.
The following are grounds for suspension of a district attorney or for his removal from office:
(1) Mental or physical incapacity interfering with the performance of his duties which is, or is likely to become, permanent;
(2) Willful misconduct in office;
(3) Willful and persistent failure to perform his duties;
(4) Habitual intemperance;
(5) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(6) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute; or
(7) Knowingly authorizing or permitting an assistant district attorney to commit any act constituting grounds for removal, as defined in subdivisions (1) through (6) hereof.
A proceeding to suspend or remove a district attorney is commenced by filing with the clerk of superior court of the county where the district attorney resides a sworn affidavit charging the district attorney with one or more grounds for removal. The clerk shall immediately bring the matter to the attention of the senior regular resident superior court judge for the district or set of districts as defined in G.S. 7A‑41.1(a) in which the county is located who shall within 30 days either review and act on the charges or refer them for review and action within 30 days to another superior court judge residing in or regularly holding the courts of that district or set of districts.
If the superior court judge upon review finds that the charges if true constitute grounds for suspension, and finds probable cause for believing that the charges are true, he may enter an order suspending the district attorney from performing the duties of his office until a final determination of the charges on the merits.
During the suspension the salary of the district attorney continues. If the superior court judge finds that the charges if true do not constitute grounds for suspension or finds that no probable cause exists for believing that the charges are true, he shall dismiss the proceeding. etcetera
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_7a/gs_7a-66.html
The Constitution doesn’t count for much if the people in power are corrupt and/or the electorate are idiots.
End game...no constitution.
Prosecute Obama for what, exactly?
Exhibit A,
The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Exhibit B, U. S. Code
CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT
CHAPTER 1--PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone “challenge” eligibility during a short, specified time frame while the electoral college votes are opened and tabulated.
This process runs counter to the language of the twentieth amendment which DEMANDS qualifications to be provided by the President elect or whomever is being considered for the office of President. The very fact that this act does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.
Based upon the above, I conclude that
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A)can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the electoral college votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. No judge can deny them "standing" to support the Constitution as they are duty bound by oath (in the Constitution) to do so.
3. It is up to "We the people" to put whatever legal pressure we can on our elected officials to uphold their oaths to the Constitution. Pressure those who are bound by the oath in Article six and they in turn will pressure Obama to "qualify" or prove he is "qualified".
This is a very legally dangerous area to drag FR into. Some idiots around the country are already calling for the impaneling of “Citizen Grand Juries.”
Do not go there.
Why not follow the Law and the Constitution?
Are you saying that we must sit and take it? The law is the law. Is there some sort of shame to avoid while applying it to those who willfully ignore enforcing it?
as opposed to the grand juries not made up of citizens?
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.