When did the new governor start?

*()T^(+_|:K()*&*(_UKKL:

Well, we now agree that Governor Easley's term ended on December 31 and Governor Perdue's term began on January 1. However, there can only be one term of office at a time. Therefore under your theory Governor Easley was properly exercising the powers of the governor during Governor Perdue's term of office or under my theory, Governor Perdue, having postponed taking the oath of office until January 10, was Governor but without the authority, absent taking the oath, to exercise those powers. However, she was still the Governor having been duly elected and meeting all of the qualifications required by the Constitution. Postponing taking the oath does not result in a "holdover".

Her term began on January 1, but did she did not assume office until she took the oath on January 10. During the 10 day interregnum, Easley remained as Governor under the holdover provisions of the state constitution, as the law abhors a vaccuum in an an executive office.

This issue of when a term began would be no different than if a Council of State member resigned March 1, and a new member was appointed March 10 and took the oath March 15. The term still began January 1, and still ends on a December 31.

We can agree to disagree but isn't this a sufficiently important question that there needs to be a clear, definitive answer? There's caselaw out there that says terms are for a fixed time period and if, as you agree, Easley's term ended on December 31, are you saying that Governor Perdue's term didn't begin until January 10? Or are you saying, as I have, that her term began on January 1 but until taking the oath she couldn't exercise her powers?

Justice Orricl, yes Easleys term ended December 31, but he held over until the new Governor took the oath of office. Perhaps we can agree to disagree here.

Since we're all quoting bits and pieces of Article III of the constitution, here's the link.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/article3.html

Of course, Section 3 clarifies how current executive officials continue in office until new officials are qualified.

Doesn't the Pope Center for Art's Constitutional Law have some annexation matters or something to work on?

Actually "cornbread" I did in fact raise the same issue about all of the newly elected Council of State members whose terms all began on January 1 according the Constitution. And for my old classmate, brother Cohen, take a look at the cases noted under GS 128-5,"Oath Required Before Acting". They indicate that an oath is a mere incident to the office. The requirement under the Constitution (Art. III, Sec.4) that "the Governor"(not the "Governor-elect")take an oath, is the mechanism by which the new Governor is authorized to execute the powers of the office. But the oath is not a "qualification" (Art.III, Sec.2(2) and Beverly Perdue's term of office as Governor began on January 1. And if her term began on January 1, then obviously Mike Easley's term ended on December 31.

I don't hear Bob Orr saying that Les Merritt's actions were suspect until Beth Wood took the oath for State Auditor.

Come 'on, Bob. You've got bigger issues than how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

My law school classmate Bob Orr conflates when a term starts and when someone takes office. The current term of the Governor is January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2012, but the new Governor did not take office until she took the oath on January 10, 2009. The Constitution is very clear that the prior office holder continues in office until the successor is elected and "qualifies". One "qualifies" by taking the oath of office.