Back to the main articles page     

The seating of an athetist & the North Carolina Constitution / An open Letter to the Attorney General

Dear Attorney General Cooper,

On December 10, 2009, in an email message to LT. Governor, Walter Dalton, in his capacity as the President of the Senate, and the President Pro Tempore, I issued a notification that the City of Asheville, North Carolina would placed itself above the Constitutional Law of the State by seating a man on it’s Council who had been disqualified by Article VI, section 8 and arguably section 7 as well.

I wrote to the Lt. Governor because It was my belief that the Legislative power of the State was vested in the General Assembly where laws are made and enacted, would surely be the Body to define to the City of Asheville that it’s action to seat an athetist was in violation of the State Constitution. And that the required oath of office for an elected official in the State of North Carolina can only be changed by a resolution approved by both chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly, signed by the Governor and approved by a vote of the people in a state wide general election.

The Lt. Governor would in an email message make this reply: Dear Mr. Edgerton, Thank you for taking the time to contact the Lieutenant Governor’s office and expressing your concerns regarding a member of the Asheville City Council. The issue you reference, specifically the conflict between the actions of the board and the North carolina, is not a legislative decision, but rather a legal one. The question of the legality of a provision in the State Constitution is one that must be decided by the court system. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if we can be of service to you in the future. Most sincerely, Walter Dalton.

Since the Lt. Governor has shifted the guardianship of the Constitution away from his Body, I can only look to the Department of Justice where your duties define that when public safety and interest are at stake, the Attorney General can take legal action on behalf of the State and it’s citizens.

No entity should be allowed to operate above the law. And until our people and the Assembly elected by them come together in a Convention to revise or amend our Constitution, it is law and should be enforced. The continued argument that the U.S. Constitution trumps the State Constitution has no merit here because it has not been determined if Article 6, section 8 even fits the parameters of a religious test as described by the framers. And the case which is cited in Baltimore, Md. while having some similarities is much different than the one we now face.

It is clear that a proposal of a new or revised Constitution or an amendment or amendments to this Constitution be initiated by the General Assembly. And until, or if revised, Mr. Bothwell is in violation of State Constitutional Law. And most importantly, if my assumption is wrong, please advise.


HK Edgerton
Southern Heritage 411