Your right, however the "OATH " they take for office is where "We The People " bind them down, but you can't
educate people who don't want to get involved.
Marbury V. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, ( 1803)
Miranda V. Arizona 384 US 436 p. 491
There are may others also.
So its not a question of law, and who determines it, as its already been done.
Its a matter of we the people holding the "Oath takers " to keep their oath of office, OR
replacing them for "Bad Behaviour"
This can be done very fast, you do NOT have to wait to vote an new officer in.
Think about that !
I'm gonna take this in an entirely different direction. Its not a personal attack, Robin. I'm just sayin'.
---------------------------------------------------
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says, "To secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was an old idea by the time Jefferson penned those words. John Locke had written about it in 1689 in
Second Treatise On Government.* The reason for government is to secure the unalienable rights--see the Declaration of Independence. Not any old power government feels like giving itself; only
just powers. And, where do these only-the-just powers come from? The consent of the governed.
Here's where I take it in a wholly unexpected direction (remember later that I was the good guy--I alerted you, reader, that I was headed in an unexpected direction.)
Wait!! What!?!?!? The consent of the governed? Hold on just a moment!
I never consented. Did you? Lets look at contract law for a datum of comparable magnitude. (You cannot evaluate a piece of data without a piece of data to compare it to. And, that second piece of data must be of comparable magnitude.) No court would hold another party to your contract unless you could prove they consensually agreed to your contract. "Oh, you never got their signature?" The court would laugh you out of the building for trying to hold another to a contract you could not prove they entered into with you consensually.
Yet, on this monumentally important social question--government by consent of the governed--they will inflict government on you without your express consent (read to mean your signature agreeing to let them be the people to dictate regulations, laws, infringements of rights to you.)
I never consented. Did you? And, I don't mean some
implication you consented because you voted after having been told when young by your teachers that it was your bounden duty as a citizen to vote. I mean same level as a contract on a question far more important than a mere contract--when did you sign a piece of paper agreeing to be ruled by them?
I never signed such a piece of paper. Did you?
But, wait! There is an even stiffer proof: you cannot un-consent. Ah-HAH!! There is their lie! They can claim seven ways to Sunday that you consented by this or that implication. All lies. The proof lays in the fact that you cannot
withdraw your consent. Oh, ho ho ho. It takes no imagination at all to estimate what would happen if you sent a letter to your municipality, state, and the fedgov withdrawing your consent to be ruled by each of them. "Dear...and since I no longer consent to be ruled by you, I will no longer pay what you call "my" property tax." It takes no imagination to estimate the results of such a letter genuinely put into practice. No matter what they say, no matter how sophisticated their argument, the fact that you cannot
withdraw your consent proves they never really believed in consent in the first place.
And, yet, that is exactly what the Declaration of Independence says: "...
consent of the governed." And--mind this carefully--the second paragraph of Declaration of Independence gives the justifications for the break from England. The second paragraph
is the legitimacy for the American Revolution. If those ideas are not legitimate, then the break with England was not legitimate. Consent of the governed is expressly, overtly, verbatim-ly a part of that justification. Yet, you are ruled. Whether you consent or not. As am I.
There are lots of angles to the foregoing discussion. For example--just one--can any five people legitimately depute a sixth person, by secret ballot no less, to rule a seventh person? Numerous angles to the foregoing discussion. But, here is where I swing back to Robin's post.
Every one of the people governing you (euphemism for
ruling) is willing to do it without consulting you on whether you agree and consent to let them do it. They neither want nor consider they need your agreement to set themselves above you. They're going to do it whether you agree or not.
So, why on earth would anybody expect them to honor an oath? They don't even believe you're important enough--an equal--to first get your express, individual consent before inflicting laws, regulations, and ordinances on you. Why on earth would anyone believe for even one millisecond they sincerely believe any oath they offer? They don't believe
your agreement/consent is necessary before inflicting themselves on you. There is no possible way they consider their oath is sacrosanct, much less important. Why make a sincere oath to somebody you don't even consider important enough to obtain his actual, genuine consent? Why make a sincere oath to somebody you demonstrably consider less than your equal? (Because, if you believed he really was your equal, you would know you cannot set yourself above him and rule him without his express, individual consent.)