Maine Legislature Had No Authority To Change The Enacting Clause In The Original Constitution For The State of Maine And The 2003 Constitution

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.

Feedback anyone?

Published in: on May 30, 2013 at 12:05 pm  Comments (36)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

36 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi!

    I went to the law library on Tuesday, and discovered that the “new” enacting clause was created in 1907.

    That means we have been under the “tyranny of the majority” otherwise known as “mob rule” for 106 years.

    Is it any wonder that we cannot get any justice in this statutory state (democracy as opposed to a republic), and particularly in those fake courts operating today where none of the so-called judges are commissioned?

    A commission “vest the office,” and it is a public office which is a place of trust, and the judges are supposed to be trustees of this public office.

    In other words, they are supposed to administer justice and not injustice, and they must be impartial.

    Those so-called judges do not even operate from a public office because they have NEVER been vested with one to begin with.

    They are imposters.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  2. In reference to your question as to when the “new” enacting clause come into being, as far as I know, it was it was proposed and submitted in 1907 under ch 121 and it supposedly became effective in January 6, 1909.

  3. Hi!

    In the 1907 Resolve (Chapter 121) to amend the constitution in Section 19 it states in part:

    “Any measure referred to the people and approved by the majority of the votes given thereon shall, unless a later date is specified in said measure, take effect and become a law in thirty days after the governor has made public proclamation of the result of the vote on said measure, which he shall do within ten days after the vote thereon has been canvassed and determined.”
    Approved on March 20, 1907

    So it is reasonable to believe, unless the governor took longer than ten (10) days to make the public proclamation, that this Resolve took effect forty (40) days after the Resolve was passed on March 20, 1907.

    Nelson, do you have any concrete evidence that it took effect in 1909?

    This time frame (2 years) seems to be way too much time to elapse for a law to actually becomes law.

    By the way, I possess the actual Resolve that I copied at the law library on Tuesday.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • I took that reference from page 39 of my 1983 government provided copy of the “CONSTITUTION of the STATE of MAINE”, that’s the way it is printed on the cover. It is presented “As Amended January, 1983).

  4. Hi!

    Here is something else.

    Resolve of 1907, Section 22 states in part:

    “Resolved. That the aldermen of cities, the selectmen of towns and the assessors of the several plantations in this state are hereby empowered and directed to notify the inhabitants of their respective cities, towns, and plantations in the manner prescribed by law to vote at the meeting in September in the year one thousand nine hundred and eight upon the amendment proposed in the foregoing resolutions, and ……………..”

    So thirty (30) days after it passage and the governor’s public proclamation (10 days) could be late October or so of 1908.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • According to the previous mentioned 1983 government provided copy of the “CONSTITUTION of the STATE of MAINE”, the resolve you speak of was likewise listed as having an Effective Date of January 6, 1909.

  5. Hi!

    Nelson, you are correct about the effective date being January 6, 1909.

    I just found it in my document called “Enacted Constitutional Amendments” which is a separate document from the resolve of

    Thank you for your help.

    Lise from Maine

  6. Hi Nelson,

    What is that book that you refer to as the 1983 Constitution of the State of Maine?

    Sounds like an interesting book.

    Where did you get it?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • Actually, I referred to it as my 1983 government provided copy of the “CONSTITUTION of the STATE of MAINE”, that’s the way it is printed on the cover. It is presented “As Amended January, 1983. I had acquired it back in the days when I was politically active in challenging the coercive driver’s licensing acts of the liars, killers and thieves club.

      Copies of these propaganda booklets use to be made available to the public upon the asking for at either the Secretary of States office or the State Law Library. I say “propaganda booklets” because they at just printed up by the liars, killers and thieves club and freely disseminated to the public as a tool to indoctrinate and con the masses into believing that the racketeering activities of the liars, killers and thieves club has some form of reasonable legitimacy to it so that people will not resist or question the supposed “authority” of government.

  7. Hi Nelson,

    The reason that I was asking is because that book revealed to you and me that the fraudulent “new” enacting clause actually went into effect on January 6, 1909.

    I had to look further into my documents in order to verify that, indeed, it went into effect on that date.

    Sounds like it is no longer available to the public.

    Oh well!

    By the way, did you win your challenge(s) regarding the driver’s license?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • In regards to my challenge to the coercive driver’s license acts of the liars, killers and thieves club, it proved to be a futile effort.

      The liars, killers and thieves club got a verdict in their favor at that juncture primarily because the Baal priest sitting on the bench ignored my challenges to subject matter jurisdiction and suppressed so much of my evidence that was comprised of rescission’s and affidavits and kept them hidden from the biased empaneled licensed drivers that they had no way to make a fair and impartial decision and responded as any group of indoctrinated house slaves would respond under the given circumstances. Juries aren’t really comprised of very many intelligent, free thinking people, they’re mostly educated in the school systems that have been set up by the liars, killers and thieves club to create good, obedient house slaves in life.

      • By the way, I think those booklets with their Supplemental Amendments are printed regularly, perhaps every other year or so. So now the ones that are available (if they are still available to the public) are probably dated 2012 or 2013. Just give the Sec-of-State office a call and ask them about obtaining one, the racketeers will probably be delighted to send you one free of charge..

  8. Hi!

    Recently, I got a copy of a statute of 1915 whereby the legislature under the fraudulent “new” enacting clause authorized and directed the town of Rumford, Maine to purchase land or “by taking” for public purposes to erect a new building for municipal and county purposes (courthouse) on borrowed money by issuing interest-bearing negotiable notes/bonds not exceeding forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) to the town of Rumford and not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to the county of Oxford.

    Where is the delegation of authority in 1915 that the legislature can cause the people of town of Rumford and the people of the county of Oxford to go into debt for public purposes?

    Furthermore, all so-called laws passed AFTER January 6, 1909 is a fraud under that “new” enacting clause since the legislature had NO authority to “weaken” itself and granted the people “new” powers to take away their own rights plus others under “mob” rule.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • Maybe this link will give you some insight on how people like the Brown’s in New Hampshire realized that the con-game of government is used to distract people from the real issues of fraud and corruption in government:

  9. Hi Nelson,

    That sucks that you lost your driver’s license fiasco but I am NOT surprised at all.

    I agree with you in that these “fake” judges are behave as baal priests.

    I have been saying for a long, long time that the “fake” judges will have those, who enter these private courts, for lunch because it is the lion’s den, and the lions win most of the time.

    There is an occasional win but these fakes will make sure that the next person loses.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  10. Hi Nelson,

    I am familiar with that affidavit of the Browns of New Hampshire. The only one that I was not unfamiliar with is number 30; I did not know that.

    By the way, Elaine Brown and I communicate back and forth; she is currently located in West Virginia in a BOP prison.

    She may contribute to my book – a chapter.

    I will continue in my research into the fraud that happened here in Maine for over a hundred years plus I actually enjoy the research.

    Need to figure out WHEN we lost our militia.

    Do you know, Nelson?

    Also, need to figure out WHEN the commercial, fake Supreme Judicial Court was created. I believe it is sometimes AFTER the new enacting clause.

    Going to the law library again soon.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  11. Hi!

    Meant to say “not familiar with” number 30.

    Sorry for the error.

    Lise from Maine

  12. Hi Nelson,

    I am familiar with the Dick Act but I am looking for a Maine law(s) that abolished the state militia.

    Haven’t found it yet.

    Do you know of any?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  13. Hi Nelson,


    That is quite a story about the raid on Mr. Page’s home in the middle of the night.

    This guy could have been killed or seriously injured in the raid.

    Thank you for the link to this story.

    Lise from Maine

  14. Hi!


    That is disgusting and horrifying that the guy was shot by a hunter near his home, and no one is yet arrested.

    Do we have a justice system?

    Absolutely not!

    Lise from Maine

  15. Hi!

    This is NOT the original militia of Maine.

    “……which organization and maintenance of the Maine State Guard shall be consistent with federal regulations prescribing the organization, standard of training, instruction and discipline of state military forces.”

    Federal regulations?

    This is horse manure!

    Why the word “national?”

    What happened to our “original” militia of Maine?

    The militia of Maine could be called up by the general government to fight within the states and NOT go overseas as they have been doing. The Governor could also called upon the militia for some assistance, if need be.

    This is insane.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • Again, you’ll have to let us know the source from where you are getting your definition or concept of “original militia of Maine” from in order for anyone to be able to determine where this “original militia of Maine” not only came from, but where it supposedly went afterwards. You just may be chasing another government created fiction of law in life. Government creates fictions quite often in order to keep the populace confused and chasing their tails all the time.

  16. Hi!

    That is a very interesting story about the Maine Militia. Thanks for sharing it with us on this forum.

    When I refer to the “original” militia of the State of Maine, I am referring to the “original” Constitution of the State of Maine. It is NOT the Maine militia.

    See Article VII.

    It says nothing about federal regulations, and voting was always a state regulated issue (free and independent state and NOT a territory of the United States) and NOT a federal question as you can see in the voter registration application these days. Those, who qualified to vote, were called “electors” and not voters.

    What I am looking for are “changes” that took place OVER TIME so I can see when the fraud began and what is happening today.

    The constitution in place today (2003) operates under the “new” enacting clause.

    In order to challenge or reveal anything to the general public, I must be able to say when changes began and any changes that took place over time so that I have credibility. I must also be able to explain what the changes mean, too.

    Some people are quick to want to go to the governor or go to the legislature or anyone else in order to attempt to correct things but they haven’t done their research.

    One must be able to present a good history of the changes so credibility isn’t challenge.

    In other words, one must know what one is talking about.

    Credibility is EVERYTHING.

    Education is key in order to get the people to understand what is happening today regarding “secured” rights being violated.

    Most secured rights are violated right in those fake courts, of course.

    The enacting clause that went into effect in 1909, for example, effectively threw the republic into the background so to speak. It is
    still there, and the legislature could not lawfully destroy it completely
    so instead it created a democracy unlawfully hoping that no one would notice, and it appears that no one did.

    The people (electors – all men) at the time latched on to this new expansion of powers given to them and thought this was great.

    No questions asked so I assume which is reasonable to assume since there were more YEAS than NAYS on this ballot.

    Their descendants and more have paid a hefty price for this new expansion of powers to the electors.

    The effects of this are:

    1. Republic is now “shut down” and thrown into the background
    where it sits “empty” now. It is still there.
    2. Under the democracy the legislature has weaken itself.
    3. Granted the people (electors) unlawfully an expansion of powers.
    4. Democracy is now operating under “majority rule” otherwise known
    as “mob rule.”

    If anyone knows of any other “effects,” let us know on this forum so we can all learn from it.

    A situation just happened a few days where a certain person was involved in a court case. He contacted two (2) persons to help him understand this concept that the constitutional judges must be commissioned. I was one of those persons and spent hours upon hours with him on the phone attempting to educate him on this concept. The other person did the same.

    Did he succeed in court using this concept?

    Absolutely not!

    He didn’t know his stuff (couldn’t remember words, meanings, how to use it, etc), and the fake judge challenged him on this, and I warned him that that would more likely happen.

    It did.

    People must know this “like the back of their hand” if they plan on using this concept in court otherwise it will fail as it did in this case.

    I have learned a good lesson regarding this and that is one cannot for the most part expect to fully learn in such a SHORT TIME new ideas, new words, new definitions, and the meaning of this requirement that all constitutional judges must be commissioned and
    how to use it in court.

    From this experience, I will NO longer attempt to educate anyone regarding this issue who has an ongoing court case.

    I will NOT waste my time which is valuable to me.

    If you have an ongoing court case, don’t call me or email me about this.

    One must learn this BEFORE there is even a court case. It is always best to be prepared in case you land in court, and one has plenty of time to “digest” this new information.

    Keep in mind that ALL judges must be commissioned no matter what state they are operating in.

    All of them.

    So those from other states would find this information useful (my upcoming book) and can go into their own law books and archives and conduct their own research pertaining to their own state.

    Additionally, I did spend a great deal of time with another person, who had PLENTY of time, educating him on this concept as above-noted and his case was eventually dismissed. A dismissal is a win.

    He knew HOW to use it.

    Take notice: It took months and months on the phone and emails to educate him and that he FINALLY understood after repeating and repeating to him this concept that all judges must be commissioned and what it actually means.

    Furthermore, don’t ask me who this person is who failed in court as above-mentioned because I will NOT reveal his name.

    Lastly, my upcoming book can be used as a reference book, and people can go back and review it over and over and over again in order to comprehend the concepts mentioned in it.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  17. Hi!

    I remember years ago when I was scheduled to sit in front of a panel of 3 persons, who represented the state in this instance, who would each ask me 4 questions relating to my clinical work.

    I had 45 minutes to do it.

    Did I enter this arena and decide to study those concepts two or three days beforehand?

    Of course not!

    I studied for over a year and received a 100% score and accomplished this in 42 minutes.

    Keep in mind that while in there, there is NO time to think about things.

    You MUST know it “like the back of your hand” otherwise you will fail which is exactly what happened to this person who recently failed in court as above-referenced. He thought he could learn new concepts in just a day or two.

    It won’t happen.

    There is NO time to think about things while in front of a fake judge who will not administer justice and will favor the side of the prosecution.

    You must be well equipped to handle any trickery that the fake judge will use against you while in court otherwise you will look like someone who is lacking knowledge and will appear to be a fool.

    Learn the material LONG BEFORE you may need it.

    Before getting to this panel, I had to pass a written exam and had to conduct a case study of a former patient, which had about 80 to 90 components, and it had to be accepted/approved by the state.

    I strongly believe that my educational training has helped me in “putting the pieces of the puzzle” (making connections) together regarding my research on the fraud that is being foisted upon the people today.

    I was a fool thinking that I could teach this person in just a couple of days new concepts regarding the judges’ requirement to be commissioned.

    I admit to be being foolhardy in that instance.

    Remember, it was his idea to use this material in court and NEVER mine. All I did was educate him. It was his choice, and he was desperate.

    My lesson is learned.

    Time to move on to more research.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • OK, now when you state “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.”, what makes you think that? Where do you think the authority to do so rested in the first place and what makes you think that it wasn’t done with the consent of those who it affected at the time it was done? Remember, when this change was done, it was after the de facto government had already been foisted upon the people after the Civil War era.

      Just asking, that’s all. I think that sooner or later you are going to realize that government has always been operating under constitutions of no authority in the first place, it’s all been a con game right from the very beginning. Read Lysander Spooner’s “The Constitution of No Authority” sometime and you’ll see what I mean:-)

  18. Hi!

    For additional information, I sat in front of this panel in order to get licensing (the final requirement) so I could diagnose and treat a certain segment of the population.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  19. Hi Nelson!

    Yes, I am familiar with Lysander Spooner’s material, and I especially like his writing on the “trial by jury,” since I am interested in the court system here in Maine.

    I believe that I would enjoy an intellectual conversation with Mr. Spooner if I could have one with him.

    Furthermore, he also decided to go into competition with the Post Office of the United States (not the United States Postal Service as we have nowadays). I absolute love his boldness.

    I am also familiar with the fact that the civil war changed everything. Several years ago I bought $600 worth of books regarding the civil war and learned a great deal that I was never taught in school.

    Naturally, the victor always tells historical facts in the manner that it wants to present them to the school children which are full of lies and twisted, of course.

    My major interest nowadays is the corrupt court system in Maine and also learning when the changes/shifts took place in our republic. This helps me understand what is going on today.

    Yes, I have to wonder by what delegation of authority did the Founding Fathers of Maine have in order to establish a Constitution of the State of Maine. One of the Founding Fathers came from my neighboring town
    of Bethel, Maine – Dr. John Grover.

    I am going to the law library soon and hope to discover some new revelations.

    I actually enjoy researching.

    P.S. In my recent research I discovered that there was a “juvenile” court established before 1911 (remember that the new enacting clause became effective in 1909), and it was very successful in removing far too many children from their parents.

    A report was presented to the legislature on January 11, 1911 by a special joint committee explaining that it cost the state too much money to continue doing this.

    Hope to find out more about this court when I go to the law library.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  20. Hi!

    I just came across another resolve from my files, and it is a resolve about the military in Maine. This resolve came about in 1919 – 10 years AFTER the new enacting clause went into effect in 1909.

    In Article VII in the Constitution of the State of Maine (1820) it states in part in sect 1:

    “The captains and subalterns of the militia shall be ELECTED by the written votes of the members of their respective companies” as well
    the field officers and the Brigadier General.

    In sect 2 it states that “the Major Generals shall be ELECTED by the Senate and House of Representatives and the Adjutant General and
    Quarter Master General (the AG shall perform the duties of the QMG)shall be appointed by the Governor and the Council.” The Major Generals and the Brigadier Generals as well as the commanding officers of their regiments and battalions shall APPOINT their respective staff officers (all emphasis is mine).

    NOTHING is mentioned about any laws and regulations of the United States.

    In the resolve of 1919 it states in part: “Two-thirds of the legislature concurring, that article seven of the Constitution be AMENDED by striking out all of sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of said article and substituting therefor the following sections:

    Section 1. “ALL” commissioned officers of the militia shall be APPOINTED and commissioned by the governor from such persons as are qualified by to hold such offices.”

    Sect. 2. “The legislature shall, by law, DESIGNATE the qualifications necessary for holding a commission in the militia and shall prescribe the mode of selection of officers for the several grades.”

    Sect. 4. “The organization armament and discipline of the militia and of the military and naval units thereof shall be the same as that which is now or may HEREAFTER be prescribed BY THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES (all emphasis is mine)….”

    There is the change or shift that happened in 1919 to our militia. This resolve passed with 15,826 yeas and 11,020 nays on September 8, 1919 and went into effect on September 24, 1919.


    It didn’t take long for this resolve to go into effect but the new enacting clause took what seemed like “forever” to be voted on and go into effect.

    Now the federal government controls our militia with its laws and regulations.

    This opened the door to what we have today known as the Maine National Guard – the Maine militia – and the nat’l guard does go overseas on assignment. The original militia of the State of Maine was never allowed to go overseas.

    Another piece of fraud and loss of our “free and independent” constitutional state.

    Is it any wonder that our rights are no longer upheld with all the changes and shifts that have taken place over time?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • Now, you do remember that there was a major world wide event that took place between 1914 and 1918, right? Do you suppose that event might have served as the Hegelian dialectic incentive (conflict resolution) to expedite this type of a change?

      As for the loss of a “free and independent” constitutional state, I would still question if there ever was such a thing in the first place. Can’t prove it by me, especially after one factors in the steps that were taken in order to pass and adopt the provisions of the 14th Amendment to the supposed Constitution of the United States.

  21. Hi Nelson,

    At this point, I am studying certain laws of Massachusetts because Maine broke away from the said state, and the laws of Maine so I can at least make an effort to understand the changes/shifts that took place over time.

    I have to start somewhere.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: