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.