Perhaps this is like unto David Merrill's notion of breech of trust and resulting trust. Imagine being on a cruise ship and the entire crew is extremely drunk, fallen ill or stricken with debilitating sickness--the same with those who are on just for the ride. The ship is headed for a big, big, big rock. Only a handful of you are sober or competent enough to take any action. What do you do? What do you do? What *can* you do? Maybe the crew and others might shout and demand: "Get drunk like us!" "Get sick like us!" Is it a question of what do you do when the rock hits the fan or what do you do Right now whether its to redirect the ship or to save yourselves?!
One issue with oaths of office is it seems that most everyone should be verifying all government officers as to whether they have an oath of office on file. If there is any official in a given forum required to see to it that offices are held only in respect to a valid oath of office, that official could be put on the hot seat for allowing any office to be 'held' without the oath OR their superior could simply be held accountable for the misdeeds of any person lacking a proper oath of office. It seems that any city clerk or county clerk would have the responsibility of seeing to it that an office is not held without a valid oath of office being taken and held by the holder. The question begs: who is allowing persons to hold office conformity to relative laws?
Reply With Quote