1941 Resolve Regarding A Question Of Law

Courtesy of Lise from Maine

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SENATE OF MAINE TO THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, FEBRUARY 14, 1941, WITH THE ANSWERS OF THE JUSTICES THEREON

View 1941 Resolve, click here.

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!

Love to hear from you.

Lise from Maine

Advertisements
Published in: on March 16, 2014 at 2:12 pm  Comments (7)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/1941-resolve-regarding-a-question-of-law/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Lise, question: SO, does Maine now have a State Treasurer per Constitution OR the unconstitutional Office of a Bureau of the Treasury?

  2. It would be very good to see exactly how the Legislature “expanded” its powers by “taking away” powers of another department in both 1855 and 1875. I click on those pages and only see the law. But if on those pages were the examples of what department and what did the legislature do…just as you did here with the Treasury department, it might be easier for others to connect the dots and light up the light bulb above their heads. For instance, in 1875, from WHOM or what department did the legislature take power away from by changing the word “majority” to “plurality” in selecting senators and why is it important that they did this? And if that is not issue (as there are a few more things voted on within this law) then what was the one thing there that the legislators did that was wrong. If this is clarified with each year you mentioned, it would go along way for others to not be overwhelmed and understand how we lost our common law through their actions.

    • This is a very good comment which would clarify some questions people may have.

  3. Hi!

    In the 1855 resolve (a resolution) the legislature expanded its own powers by taking away the ability of the Governor and the Council (advice and consent) to nominate and appoint the Attorney General, an Executive department function (see Article V, Section 8 in the original constitution). This cannot happen lawfully. The attorney general is now elected by the legislature.

    The sheriffs, judges of probate, and registers of probate (no more land agents) became elected by the people which expanded the powers of the people unlawfully. That is an Executive department function ONLY (see Article V, Section 8 in the original constitution).

    In reality, the Executive department was weakened and further weakened later on with the elimination of the Council in 1976.

    In 1875 the whole constitution was codified (roman civil law – controlled by the legislature – statutes) and went under the control of the legislature and the Chief Justice which cannot happen lawfully which is what we see today (LD 1564 and before). This changed Article V, Section 4 unlawfully in the original constitution). The whole constitution was turned “upside down.”

    By the way, NO amendments show up in LD 1564, 2003, 1993, etc constitutions. They are NOT there.

    This is fraud.

    In the original constitution the ONLY way a constitution can be changed is located in Article X, Section 4 – by amendments ONLY, and they must show up in the constitutions.

    Changes have been made and incorporated into various articles and sections of the constitution so the people have NO idea how to trace back what changed in the constitution.

    What I see with my research is layer upon layer upon layer of fraud and treason.

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  4. Hi!

    My issue with the 1875 resolve is the codification of the constitution and NOT the “majority” and “plurality” in electing senators and anything else.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    P.S. Love the comments. Keep them coming.

  5. Hi!

    In 1941 the legislature once again attempted to expand its own powers but failed when the justices of the supreme judicial court ruled against them.

    This is the significance of the 1941 “question of law” case.

    They failed.

    Great!

    The Founding Fathers never intended for “one” department to act and behave as tyrants and dictators by weakening the other departments and “expanding” its own powers via the legislature, etc.

    There are 3 distinct departments, and they all have different powers, and it is meant to stay that way.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  6. Good work as always Lise, Debby had a point that I would like to expand upon. If we could have a time line of Maine constitutional erosion that we could use to educate more people on the destruction of our government. We could use it in a brochure form to hand out and show the people the serious nature that our BAR Lawyers have worked on to take over the power by a very secret cabal of evil men. This should not be a lengthy document but one that is easily read in a minute or two.


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: