Another revelation from Lise M.:
Has anyone examined the enacting clause in the original Constitution of the State of Maine and the 2003 constitution?
Well, I did and what a revelation!
In the original constitution in Article IV Part First, legislative power, house of representatives, section 1 states in part:
…….”and both to be stiled the Legislature of Maine, and the style of their Acts and Laws, shall be, “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in Legislature assembled.”
Keep in mind that this enacting clause was created by the constitution “itself.” This is vital to comprehend.
In the Constitution of the State of Maine of 2003 in Article IV Part First, house of representatives, section 1 states in part:
…….”and both to be styled the Legislature of Maine, but the people reserve to themselves power to propose laws and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the Legislature, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any Act, bill, resolve, or resolution passed by the joint action of both branches of the Legislature, and the style of their laws and Acts shall be, “Be it enacted by the people of the State of Maine.”
Does anyone see anything wrong with this “new” enacting clause?
I see plenty wrong with it.
It all appears to be beautiful that the people has this power granted to it but it rears its ugly head.
What does this mean?
The legislature had NO delegation of authority to change the original enacting clause and CONVERT our republic here in Maine into a democracy which actually mean “mob rule.”
This new enacting clause has “weaken” the legislature just like the so called 17th amendment (1913 along with the fed reserve system) did, and has also “weaken” the people when 51% of the people can vote against 49% of the people and create a new law and take away the people’s rights. Some of the people (51%) have no right lawfully to take away other people’s rights.
None at all.
The people operating in a republic were NEVER granted such powers, and they can’t give it to themselves. The original constitution of the State of Maine was a limitation on the state and FOR the benefit of all and NOT just some of the people.
This is dictatorship. This is fraud, deception, pretense, secrecy, and false representation. In a republic this does not happen and cannot happen at all.
Read Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Maine again and “clearly see” what this actually means and its devastating effects on the people themselves and even the 51% when they vote a right away from themselves plus the 49% of the people. In other words, they vote themselves (new laws) into slavery. This is the statutory state and NOT the original state.
Understand that having the new enacting clause is a CLASSIC case of “divide and conquer.” It divides the 51% from the 49%, and then it “unites” them into slavery by voting a certain way, for ex., taking away gun rights for all, etc. This is fraud and communism at its worst.
In People ex rel. Burry v. Howland et al (1898) it states that the office of the Justice of the Peace cannot be abolished by the New York legislature because this office was created by the Constitution of New York itself.
The Justice of the Peace office plus the Notary office have been removed from the judicial department here in Maine, and I believe placed into the executive department. This is fraud, too.
The original enacting clause was created by the Constitution of the State of Maine itself so, therefore, it cannot be abolished, and the legislature operates underneath it plus the legislature has no delegation of authority to create a democracy.
Now do you see the fraud foisted upon the people? Both the legislature and the people are weaken by this “new” enacting clause.
Divide and conquer! It divides the 51% of the people against the 49% of the people plus it divides the legislature and the people, too. How nice!
In a democracy it is majority rule, and in a republic the people elect their representatives to represent them for their benefit and NOT just some of the people.
This was so “clever” to change the enacting clause and pretend that the people were granted such powers to take away their own rights plus the rights of others and create a democracy by taking away our republic.
This is deception and fraud at its best.
The worse part is that it “looks nice” but in actuality it is really ugly, and I mean real ugly.
When did the “new” enacting clause come into being? I don’t know yet but I do possess some laws created in 1931 and those laws have the “new” enacting clause established within them.