re: AG threatens 8 New Orleans leaders with removal from office in court clerk battle

Please expand your answer.

It's clear the office of the ClerkS of Court are established by the state, and they have the power to expand, consolidate, etc.

quote:

---

It's called Home Rule...

---

State District Courts don’t fall under that, doofus.

quote:

---

You come onto a message board, and refuse to have a conversation. You're BRILLIANT. Just brilliant.

---

Some people do want to have a conversation.

You want to research what documents written decades ago technically allow the government to do and walk away without discussing the implications of that decades-old language.

quote:

---

State District Courts don’t fall under that, doofus.

---

The election of local court officials does, and that's the immediate issue...

quote:

---

Stop claiming the state "can't"...because they can.

---

I don’t think I’ve argued that the State doesn’t posses the authority to pass this legislation.

quote:

---

All this dick measuring is getting old, fast.

---

The State held an election then immediately passed legislation that rendered the outcome of that election meaningless.

The State needs to allow another election for the same office with a new name and different duties and be done with it.

quote:

---

I don’t think I’ve argued that the State doesn’t posses the authority to pass this legislation.

---

You have argued that Trayvon martin was shot by police and that Sandra bland was murdered by jail workers.


Still waiting on you to simply admit the truth and join us in reality.

Why do you continue to refuse to simply admit reality?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So is what you're arguing is that every time the state legislature expands, restricts or changes the duties or functions of an office they have created a "new office" that requires a new election?

---

No, not every change. But sufficiently substantial changes that fundamentally alter the office’s structure, jurisdiction, or democratic function can raise legitimacy concerns… even if the legislature possesses the authority to codify those changes.

---

Okay, now we're getting somewhere and thank you for answering the question.

"Legitimacy concerns" aside, what - and where - is the legal standard for determining when the legislature's changes to an position's duties so "fundamentally alter the office's structure, jurisdiction or democratic function" that a "new office" is created requiring a new election?

This isn't semantics; as I said before, reasonable minds can disagree on the wisdom of what the legislature did - but your insistence that abolition of the criminal clerk and transfer of its duties to the civil clerk represents a constitutional crisis that warrants federal court intervention in a question of law goes way beyond your disapproval of what the legislature did.

I realize you get emotionally invested in these issues, but if the state legislature had the constitutional authority to abolish the office of civil clerk (which you have acknowledged) everything else is a disagreement over policy, not legality. The legislature does bone-headed crap that I fundamentally disagree with all the time... but that doesn't make it illegal, much less warrant federal court intervention in a question of state law as you have called for.

EDIT: While I was typing you posted this:

quote:

---

Again, I understand the State has the authority to pass this legislation.

I think intent matters. I can’t imagine this power was granted in anticipation of the situation we are currently discussing. Broad grants of authority can be applied in ways their drafters may not have contemplated, and those applications can create legitimacy concerns even if technically lawful.

---

To be clear, you seem to be acknowledging that the legislature had the authority to do what it did, you just disagree with it (the timing?) because it "creates legitimacy concerns"?

But back to where you started this thread: You complained that the AG had "threatened" local officials for appointing an interim clerk and calling for an election to replace Chelsea Napoleon in an office that was created by state law, not city ordinance. So, here's the questions I have been patiently and respectfully trying to slow-walk you to:

(1) Do you believe the New Orleans City Council and Mayor have the authority to do replace Chelsea Napoleon with an interim clerk and call a special election to replace her during her current term of office?

(2) If so, why?

(3) If not, why are you surprised that the AG called them out for exceeding their authority and usurping state authority?

quote:

---

The State held an election then immediately passed legislation that rendered the outcome of that election meaningless.

---

That's one of those pesky facts that complicates things and makes for interesting litigation......

quote:

---

Condescension noted.

---

No condescension intended. I have tried to engage you in a straight-forward discussion of this issue - sorry if you feel otherwise.

You started this thread complained that the AG had "threatened" local officials for appointing an interim clerk and calling for an election to replace Chelsea Napoleon in an office that was created by state law, not city ordinance, which raises some obvious questions:

(1) Do you believe the New Orleans City Council and Mayor have the authority to do replace Chelsea Napoleon with an interim clerk and call a special election to replace her during her current term of office?

(2) If so, why?

(3) If not, why are you surprised that the AG called them out for exceeding their authority and usurping state authority?