1875 Resolve – Codification Of The Amended Constitution Of Maine

Courtesy of Lise from Maine.

View Resolve, click here.

“Can the Constitution of the State of Maine (original) be “codified” as mentioned in the 1875 resolve?

Absolutely not!

Code: Laws are “reduced” to code = roman civil law and under the control of the legislature; an expansion of power for the legislature which can’t happen lawfully as the legislature operates “underneath” the original Constitution of the State of Maine and NOT above it.

An amendment is “added” to the already existing constitution (see Article X, Section 4 – Constitution of the State of Maine – original).

Does the 1875 legislature possess a delegation of authority to create a fraudulent resolve and have the people (electors) vote on it?

Absolutely not!

Before creating the 1875 resolve, did the legislature ask the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court a “question of law” regarding this fraudulent resolve (see Article VI, Section 3 – Constitution of the State of Maine – original)?

Apparently not! They allowed it to go to the people (electors) for a vote. Can the legislature lawfully “fool” the people electors) into voting for a fraudulent resolve?

NO!

This is treason and fraud against the original State of Maine and the people as a whole.

Can the Chief Justice or anyone for that matter rearrange and omit parts, articles, and sections of an amended constitution?

Absolutely not!

It was Chief Justice John Appleton of Bangor, Maine who participated in this codification of the amended constitution. He must have known what he was doing since he is the Chief Justice and learned in law (common law) otherwise he would not have had that position to start with. He committed treason and fraud against the original State of Maine and the people as a whole.

As previously stated, an amendment is “added” to the already existing constitution and cannot lawfully be rearranged and no omission is allowed.

Did Governor Nelson Dingley, Jr. of Lewiston, Maine and the Executive Council ask the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court a “question of law” as it relates to this fraudulent 1875 resolve?

I don’t know.

Can Governor Dingley execute a fraudulent law?

NO, he can’t.

Can future Governors execute fraudulent laws?

No, they cannot.

By the way, a fraudulent law is not law.

Take notice that the legislature has to approved or disapprove (new amended constitution reduced to code = roman civil law = under the control of the legislature) what the Chief Justice has submitted to them and is another expansion of power for the legislature.

So what actually happened with this 1875 resolve?

I strongly believe that a brand new “statutory” state (a reduction in status as it relates to the general government) was created unlawfully during the reconstruction acts, and the people (electors) were “fooled” into voting for it. This is the beginning of the “territorial” state as we see today ( see definition of state in Title 19 MRS and the Motor Vehicle codes).

I have to wonder if the selectmen questioned this fraudulent resolve.

I don’t know.

I repeat that a constitution cannot lawfully be codified.

Thank you!

I welcome comments.”

Lise from Maine

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/1875-resolve-codification-of-the-amended-constitution-of-maine/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Lise from Maine, you welcome comments. Okay, here’s one…

    We have duly elected officials who are assigned to preform necessary tasks on the behalf of the people. We have put them into office for precisely that purpose. They use their “better judgment” to determine what is best for the people;

    Would not you think their decisions are kept in that vein? AND, if not, just what determines they have exceeded their limits? AND who imposes those limits? Are limits not prescribed by law, the “SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND” (our Constitution), AND is not a departure from that law an act of TREASON?

    Should we hang ’em High? What would be the best course of action to regain the standing of the people?

    Elected officials abide by the fraud, so what recourse do we have?

    Seems it has all gone to far for the people to be able to recover without it turning to violence. Our officials are acting without regard for WE THE PEOPLE, and it shows in every law they pass, and every deed the do; how do you stop blatant disregard for the rights of the people when it keeps getting worse?

    Phil of Maine ***

  2. Hi Phil D.,

    My best answer to your question is “exposing” the lawlessness that occurred here in Maine over time and educating ourselves. We should know what happened and how it happened BEFORE we can do anything about it.

    Yes, some people are in a hurry to do something but I am not.

    I will be exposing our nice hero, Governor Joshua Chamberlain, who signed the fraudulent 1868 law. I will show this as an exhibit in my book.
    Did he question the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court regarding a “question of law” as mentioned in Article VI, Section 3 pertaining to the 1868 law relating to the creation of the Superior Court of Cumberland County? I don’t know but his behavior is such that he signed this fraudulent law. Behaviors do count after all. In other words, I will blow his cover/his bubble, our nice little hero of the 20th Maine. Maybe he will “roll over” in his grave in Brunswick, Maine after I expose his fraud.

    From my own experience in speaking with lots of people is that most of them do not even know about the corruption UNTIL something happens to them personally, then and only then, do they question what is wrong.

    More people need to “wake up.”

    My book is going to expose many treasonous acts and frauds, and I am working on it now.

    My biggest “pet peeve” is the lawless state-wide court system here in Maine. This is where people lose most of the time.

    Additionally, I sent Dottie some resolves and laws so she can place them on this blog. She has already. Check them out. This serves as great “education” for all to see.

    Hopefully this helps.

    Lastly, so nice to see you on this blog.

    Keep commenting.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  3. Thank You! You are a very special person. Like Dottie

  4. Lise,

    Are you interested in being part of those studying and writing a Constitution for the Republic of Maine? We are planning a vote for secession on June 12, 2018.

    Lise, I have reviewed your pages, while I have questions, I do believe you would find this challenging and rewarding.

    We are at the point where all must decide, will Maine stay a part of the union and resolve itself to be subservient to who ever is president and a Congress that totally ignores the Constitution? Will Maine revolt? Or will Maine simply use the rights given us under Article One, sections one and tow along with the Preamble and secede by vote of the people?

    Why is it I who am contacting you and act as spokes person for the secession movement? Two reasons one, I have been part of it since it’s inception in 1985, second I am now going to 70 so I am expendable.

    A thrid reason is I have a grandson going to public schools in Portland, he is being taught to be a good worker bee, Lise, If I don’t fight for him, who will? While many will vote and some will forward emails, very, very few will actually carry the load.

    I look forward to your reply and questions.

    Bob
    pastor.ChristianPatriot.com@gmail.com

  5. Hi Pastor Bob,

    I don’t agree with secession.

    What needs to happen is to bring back the original constitution where the State of Maine is a free and independent state once again (local control by the people).

    I have spent almost seven (7) years investigating the fraud and treason that has happened over time in “this” state. It was a gradual and insidious transformation of power over to the state as opposed to being the people’s power (Article 1, Section 2 – original Constitution of the State of Maine).

    The first thing that needs to happen is to educate as many as possible, and I utilize this blog as well as other forums to accomplish this.

    Many know that something is wrong but don’t really understand what happened over time.

    Thank you for your comment.

    If you have any questions, then ask them here for everyone to learn.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  6. Hi!

    On February 14, 1941 a “question of law” (see Article VI, Section 3) was asked of the justices of the supreme judicial court (not the original one) regarding the constitutional office of the Treasurer.

    Take notice that the Legislators do, indeed, know how to ask a “question of law” to the said justices.

    Did they ask a “question of law” pertaining to the fraudulent 1855 and 1875 resolves? I haven’t found yet, if it exist.

    Pay strict attention to the outcome of this case. It is long but it is very important to comprehend.

    Here is what the Legislators sent to the justices (137 Me. 350; 19 A.2d 53; (1941):

    “STATE OF MAINE IN SENATE, February 14, 1941.

    TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT:

    WHEREAS, it appears to the Senate of the 90th Legislature that the following are important questions of law and the occasion a solemn one, and

    WHEREAS, a Resolve has been introduced into the Senate entitled “Resolve Proposing Amendments to the Constitution Repealing the Constitutional Provisions Relating to the Office of Treasurer of State and Ratifying and Approving a Legislative Enabling Act Providing for
    Appointment of the Treasurer upon Approval of this Resolve” (a copy of which resolve marked Legislative Document 49 is herewith enclosed and made a part hereof) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
    Maine to remove therefrom all provisions relative to the election, tenure and qualifications of the treasurer of state, and

    WHEREAS, the amendment so proposed will be submitted to the people, if said resolve is finally passed, on the 2nd Monday in September next and, if accepted by them, will then become a part of the [***2] Constitution, and

    WHEREAS, in anticipation of the adoption of said Amendment a bill has been introduced into the Senate entitled “An Act Creating a Bureau of the Treasury and Assigning Certain Duties Thereto” (a copy of which act marked Legislative Document 46 is herewith enclosed and made a part hereof) under the terms of which the treasurer [*P351] of state is appointed by the commissioner of finance with the approval of the
    governor and council, and which act according to its terms is to become effective upon approval by the people of the aforesaid Resolve, and

    WHEREAS, it is important that the Legislature be informed as to the constitutionality of the proposed act, now therefore, be it

    ORDERED: That the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court are hereby requested to give to the Senate,according to the provisions of the Constitution on this behalf, their opinion on the following questions, to wit:

    QUESTION 1:

    Where the Constitution provides for the tenure of office, qualifications, and mode of election of a state officer but contains no express prohibition of legislation with regard to such tenure, qualifications or election, would it be a constitutional exercise of the legislative power to [***3] pass, concurrently with a resolve proposing an amendment to the constitution removing therefrom the provisions relative to the election, tenure of office and qualifications of such officer, an act providing a different mode of election and a different tenure of office, which act is not to become effective until and unless such resolve is adopted by the people?

    QUESTION 2:

    If the provisions for ratification of Legislative Document 46 were omitted from Legislative Document 49 and the act and resolve finally passed by the legislature and the resolve adopted by the people, would Legislative Document 46 then become effective according to its terms as a valid and constitutional exercise of the legislative power?

    QUESTION 3:

    If the legislature has not the power to pass the act set forth in Question 1 and the act is unconstitutional, can such unconstitutionally be cured by including in the resolve amending the Constitution as set forth in
    Question 1 an express provision ratifying and approving such act?

    [*P352] QUESTION 4:

    If Legislative Document 49 as now written were to be finally passed by the legislature and adopted by the people, would the provisions of Section 4 thereof cure any want of power in the [***4] legislature to pass
    Legislative Document 46 and make that act then effective as a valid law?

    In Senate Chamber

    Read and Passed.

    ROYDEN V. BROWN, Secretary

    February 14, 1941

    A true copy of Senate Order

    Attest: ROYDEN V. BROWN, Secretary.

    TO THE HONORABLE SENATE OF THE STATE
    OF MAINE:

    The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, having considered the questions upon which their advisory opinions were requested by Senate Order of February 14, 1941, and understanding from the preamble and Legislative Documents submitted that the questions have reference to the office of Treasurer of State, respectfully submit the following answers.

    Question 1:

    [*P353] Answer 1:

    Article XXVII of the Amendments to the Constitution of Maine provides:
    “The treasurer shall be chosen biennially, at the first session of the
    legislature, by joint ballot of the Senators and Representatives in convention, but shall not be eligible more than six years successively.”

    [**55] It is, of course, well settled that legislative power is measured by-limitation, not by grant, and is absolute and all-embracing except as expressly or by necessary implication restricted by the Constitution.
    Sawyer v. Gilmore, 109 Me., 169, 180, 83 A. 673;

    Opinion of Justices, 132 Me., 519, 174 A. 845; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 8th Ed., Vol. 1, Page 348. A prohibition by necessary implication is as effective as an express prohibition. We are of opinion that Article XXVII of the Amendments to the Constitution of Maine, clear and unambiguous in language, is mandatory and, by necessary implication, not only absolutely prohibits filling the office of State Treasurer by any method of selection not there prescribed, but is also a complete inhibition against the enactment of legislation to that end, even conditionally. Opinion of Justices, supra. [***6]

    This question is answered in the negative.

    Question 2:

    If the provisions for ratification of Legislative Document 46 were omitted from Legislative Document 49 and the act and resolve finally passed by the legislature and the resolve adopted by the people, would Legislative Document 46 then become effective according to its terms as a valid and constitutional exercise of the legislative power?

    Answer 2:

    We answer this question in the negative.

    Question 3:

    If the legislature has not the power to pass the act set forth in Question 1 and the act is unconstitutional, can such unconstitutionality [*P354] be cured by including in the resolve amending the Constitution as set forth in Question 1 an express provision ratifying mid approving such act?

    Answer 3:

    We answer this question in the negative.

    Question 4″

    If Legislative Document 49 as now written were to be finally passed by the legislature and adopted by the people, would the provisions of Section 4 thereof cure any want of power in the legislature to pass Legislative Document 46 and make that act then effective as a valid
    law?

    Answer 4:

    We answer this question in the negative.

    Very respectfully,

    GUY H. STURGIS
    JAMES H. HUDSON
    HARRY MANSER
    GEORGE H. WORSTER
    HAROLD [***7] H. MURCHIE

    Dated February 26, 1941.

    Why is this case so important?

    First of all, here is what the original Constitution of the State of Maine states regarding the constitutional office of the Treasurer in Article V, Part Fourth:

    “SECT. 1. The Treasurer shall be chosen annually, at the
    first session of the Legislature, by joint ballot of the Senators,
    and Representatives in Convention, but shall not be eligible
    more than five years successively.

    SECT. 2. The Treasurer shall, before entering on the
    duties of his office, give bond to the State with sureties, to
    the satisfaction of the Legislature, for the faithful discharge of
    his trust.

    SECT. 3. The Treasurer shall not, during his continuance in office, engage in any business of trade or commerce, or as a broker, nor as an agent or factor for any merchant or trader.

    SECT. 4. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury,
    but by warrant from the Governor and CouncIl, and in consequence
    of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money, shall be published at the commencement of the annual session of the Legislature.”

    Remember that the Treasurer’s office is a constitutional office and NOT a statutory office controlled by the Legislature.

    Issues in this case:

    1. This resolve would require the “appointment” of the Treasurer as opposed to being elected by the Legislature and “remove therefrom all provisions relative to the election, tenure and qualifications of the treasurer of state.”

    2.In “anticipation” of the adoption of this resolve (they were getting ahead of themselves) the legislators created a “statutory” Bureau of the Treasury (an inferior office controlled by the Legislature) whereby the Treasurer would be “appointed” by commissioner of finance with the approval of the Governor and the Council.

    Questions to ponder on:

    Does the Legislature have a right lawfully to “interfere” into another distinct department (see Article III, Section 1)?

    No, it does not.

    Does the Legislature have a right lawfully to “weaken” another distinct department?

    No, it does not.

    Does the Legislature have a right lawfully to “take away” conditions prescribed by the constitution in a distinct department and “give it” to a statutory officer and especially to someone in a statutory office such as the commissioner of finance?

    No, it does not.

    A statutory office and a statutory officer are “inferior” to a constitutional office and a constitutional officer.

    Are these legislators stupid?

    No, not really. They have a need for power and control such as tyrants and dictators do.

    Does the Legislature have the right lawfully to “control” the Treasurer who operates out of the Executive department, a constitutional office?

    No, it cannot.

    Can the Legislature “expand” its powers lawfully by “taking away” powers of another distinct department and “give it” to themselves,
    the legislators?

    No, it cannot.

    If the legislators are allowed this fraud and treason, then they can just make other so-called laws and change whatever they want to suit their needs.

    The Founding Fathers never allowed this in the original constitution.

    The justices of the supreme judicial court disagreed with the legislators on ALL the questions posed to them.

    It is a constitutional office, and it cannot be “reduced” to a statutory office, and cannot be under the control of a statutory officer, the commissioner of finance, who operates in a statutory office.

    Isn’t this insane for the legislators to attempt this?

    Yes indeed!

    They are acting as tyrants and dictators; they want all the power and control.

    Now let’s go back to the 1855 and 1875 resolves.

    Can the Legislature “expand” its powers by “taking away” powers of another department and creating a “codified” state under the roman civil law as opposed to the common law as the constitution follows?

    No, it cannot.

    All fraud and treason.

    If this is too complicated to understand for some of you, just read it at least twice or more times.

    Learn to make “connections” and it will be much easier to see the fraud and treason.

    Hope I didn’t overwhelm anyone since I have a tendency to do this.

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: