House Bill 1069 was introduced this past week with an eye on reforming and rectifying the problems that have arisen in State law as a result of the passage of Initiated Measure 22, which has been declared as unconstitutional and enjoined by Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett:
While the measure has significant sponsorship (I counted 50 of the 70 house members, and 27 of the 35 Senate members) there are still a few dissenters who oppose taking action.
In considering that. my attention is drawn to the oath of office legislators are required to take, as dictated in the State Constitution:
§ 3. Oath of office. Every person elected or appointed to any office in this state, except such inferior offices as may be by law exempted, shall, before entering upon the duties thereof, take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, and faithfully to discharge the duties of his office.
For the sake of discussion, if a legislator is required to swear an oath to support the constitution of the state – aren’t they almost obligated to rectify and remove laws that are contrary to it?