RSS
Home
Balance of justice shall determine Dixon’s fate, not public opinion
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Article 24-Declaration of Rights-Maryland State Constitution
That no man(woman) ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his/her freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his/her life, liberty or property, but by the judgment his/her peers, or by the Law of the land.
This article is for all those haters, conspiracy theorists, pessimistic doubters of injustice, who would much rather rant and rave (go do that at bthesite.com or pick up their paper), then actually respectfully review the charges and research Maryland law and the Baltimore ‘Constitutional’ Charter, to see exactly where we go from here, in regards to the recent allegations placed on Mayor Dixon, served through a legal Indictment.
Does she step aside based solely on allegations, yet to be proven in a court of law, convicted by a jury of her peers? Does the City Council have the power of impeachment? Does the General Assembly (who begins their 2009 legislative session this Wednesday) have the power of impeachment and/or removal of a local Mayor? If convicted, of a felony or misdemeanor, how does MD. Law speak to that conviction, as an elected official? There are many questions to be asked and answered; therefore this piece shall attempt to quench the thirst for blood, which this City and its concerned citizens’ seem to have in this latest scandal.
According to State and City Law (MD. Constitution and City Charter), there is no provision (currently) allowing the City Council or General Assembly to remove the Mayor from office upon suspicion of or charges of improprieties, while serving at the bequest of the Citizens of this great City. However, Maryland law does not allow for an elected official, to continue serving upon conviction of said charges. (i.e. former Republican State Delegate Robert McKee, on possession of child pornography conviction, that led to him serving a 37-month sentence, starting today ironically)
Article I, Section 11 of the Maryland State Constitution states in part:
Any person violating said oath, shall, on conviction thereof, in a Court of Law, in addition to the penalties now, or hereafter, to be imposed by Law, be thereafter incapable of holding any office of profit or trust in this State.
Also there are provisions for being a registered voter, in order to become an elected official or to continue to serve as such, whereas, upon conviction of her theft charges, which are felonies, she shall lose her right to vote. (However recently in 2007, in which a NEW Law concerning Felony Voting Rights, named the Voter Registration Protection Act, in which I personally wrote and help lobby in getting passed, gives former felons the ability to regain their voting rights, upon completion of said sentence given by conviction)
Article I, Section 12 of the Maryland State Constitution states in part:
A person is ineligible to enter upon the duties of, or to continue to serve in, an elective office created by or pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution, if the person was not a registered voter in this State, on the date of the person’s election or appointment to that term or if, at any time thereafter and prior to completion of the term, the person ceases to be a registered voter.
Therefore, we as a people, constituency and public, entrusted with the duties of serving as possible peers, on the Jury of Madame Mayor’s upcoming trial, must not taint or otherwise prejudge, based on the speculative charges given through the media, instead wait on the facts of the case to be brought forth and argued by both sides, then leaving us to render judgment or verdict, upon said defendant.
This obviously goes for and is relevant to the cases/charges, brought forth against Councilwoman Holton, as well as Mr. Ronald Lipscomb. Though the Council and Mayor are held to higher standards as public servants, entrusted by the public, to serve our best interests, we must reserve judgment, until otherwise proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that these persons, of such remarkable honor and service, are guilty of misusing that trust invested in them, upon election to higher office.
Obviously I know, we as a people, surrounded by crime and grime, with neighborhoods of infesting decay and abandoned housing, tend to be a little pessimistic and untrusting, when it comes to those in elected office. However we are the ones that put them there and unless we otherwise elect someone else at the proper time of elections, we must stop only complaining but be able to take those complaints in our own hands, begin doing for ourselves that which others choose not to do for us. We must remain loyal, to our communities and Country, by uplifting and serving those elected to represent our districts, federally, statewide and locally.
We live in a Democratic society where we dolefully put in office; those we believe will serve our interests, along with voting on policy, through Constitutional Amendments, that we believe will best serve our communities or Country. If the persons or person, proposition or intended law, you voted for did not pass muster, we cannot, any longer, dwell on the negativity of sore losing, but must begin serving our State and Country, respectfully and wholeheartedly, despite the outcome of an election.
However we must also remember the rights we have as a people, protected by a U.S. and State Constitution, are inalienable and permanent, and instituted solely for the good of the whole.
That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. Article 6 of the Maryland State Constitution, Declaration of Rights
Sections of Maryland law addressing removing a public official from office:Section 2 Article XV of the Maryland Constitution - Outlines what happens when a public official is convicted
Section 26 Article III of the Maryland Constitution - Outlines the powers of impeachment
Section 7 Article II of the Maryland Constitution - Outlines that the General Assembly can impeach the governor, lieutenant governor and judges
August 1973 opinion by the attorney general - States that other elected officials in the state could be subject to impeachment
Whether that power covers the Baltimore mayor, however, is subject to debate. The state constitution explicitly states that the governor, lieutenant governor and judges can be impeached.
NO Maryland official has ever been impeached.
For more info: To Contact Mr. Giordano you may e-mail him at brothahassan@yahoo.com or visit him at http://giordano.weebly.com.
Related Articles:
Comments
A balanced budget off the backs of whom? Are State/City furloughs going to balance the budget or are we just robbing Peter to pay Paul? As Matthew …
Democratic nominee resigns days after historic election It had all the makings of a great and historic election. A six-person field of Primary …
