Parallel Original CONSTITUTION OF MAINE and Statutory CONSTITUTION of the STATE OF MAINE

Courtesy of David R. Deschesne

“A Constitution is a document which establishes the foundation for a governmental system to exist.  It states its rules, by-laws, procedures and enumerates the rights the Citizenry have.  A Constitution is open to amendment only under very strict guidelines.  It may not be legally “revised” by any one person, group of people, or branch of government in any way other than that which it sets out in its amendment procedures.

“A Constitution is a document which establishes the foundation for a governmental system to exist.  It states its rules, by-laws, procedures and enumerates the rights the Citizenry have.  A Constitution is open to amendment only under very strict guidelines.  It may not be legally “revised” by any one person, group of people, or branch of government in any way other than that which it sets out in its amendment procedures.

Since the shadow Constitution was allowed, by amendment, to be codified in 1950, my thesis put forth is this:

A codified Constitution is not real, and has no force or effect because it is not written properly.  A Constitution can only be re-written by a Constitutional Convention, not a BAR-certified judge.  Constitutions must maintain their original wording withamendments appended, indicating which words are to be struck out and which words to be inserted. This leaves a “paper trail” which can be easily navigated through time.  While Maine people do vote to amend a constitution, they are not amending theConstitution. I will attempt to prove the arbitrary nature of the CONSTITUTION of the STATE of MAINE by elucidating those amendments that were passed and not written in by the Chief Justice(s) and showing language that is currently extant, but has no authorizing amendment to support it.

This page will show the original CONSTITUTION OF MAINE, the codified CONSTITUTION of the STATE of MAINE, and provide links to the text of all amendments made to both Constitutions, the original prior to 1875 and the fictional version post 1875.  A commentary will also be integrated into each Article and section in the future.  Amendments and Commentaries will be continuously updated as further research is ongoing. ”

Read more HERE.

Click on each Article to see the parallel.

Advertisements
Published in: on June 14, 2014 at 2:13 pm  Comments (7)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/parallel-original-constitution-of-maine-and-statutory-constitution-of-the-state-of-maine/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. why not see all men\womb as equal without any title, no limitations by that which is writ by another – living in peace with all upon solid land without many votes, commerce\profit, soul\spirit bondage. or mind control – genuine free man without metes and bounds – real (3D) vs fiction (2D paper)

  2. not to leave out tyhe other many Dimensions – time, space, sight, sound, et al

  3. Hi!

    The root word of codification is “code” which is roman civil law under the control of the legislature.

    The codification of the constitution took place in 1875 which created a brand new state, and the original state went empty and no one is home.

    All fraud and treason against the people, and the Governor in 1875 was Nelson Dingley, Jr who said in his legislative address in 1875 that the original constitution was a “legal patchwork.” This is a “slap in the face” to the Founding Fathers of Maine.

    The legislature does NOT control the common law principles, and the Constitution of the State of Maine (original) follows the principles of the common law.

    In Article X, Section 4 it shows how the constitution can be changed, and it is by amendment which becomes a “part” of the constitution so, therefore, the amendment itself must be printed within the new constitution in order to show a paper trail of what changed and when.

    No where in the original constitution does it say anything about a constitutional convention regarding changing the said constitution.

    No where in Article X, Section 4 (original) does it mention the Chief Justice and the legislature being involved in changing the constitution.

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  4. Take a look at the Summary of LD 1564 “Resolve, Approving the 2013 Draft and Arrangement of the Constitution of Maine Made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court and Providing for Its Publication and Distribution”. View here, https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/senator-colleen-lachowicz-kennebec-sponsors-resolve-to-amend-the-constitution-of-the-state-of-maine/

    Will Mainers call them out on this?

  5. Hopefully, many Mainers, although considering the amount of apathy that exists here, I would expect maybe a dozen or so —- which is not nearly enough! Sorry to appear so pessimistic, but facts are just that – facts.
    Lise, thanks for that excellent explanation. Now, let’s hope that many will read it, copy it, and spread it to others, ESPECIALLY to legislators! Then, we can only pray that they will realize what has occurred, and is happening to our State, and do the right and lawful thing….. obey their oaths to support the original and real Constitution of Maine.

  6. Hi!

    I also explain all of this and more in my book.

    Governor Nelson Dingley, Jr. attended Waterville College (now Colby College) in Waterville, Maine and was accused of something according to the book of 1902 written by his son Edward Nelson Dingley called
    “The Life and Times of Nelson Dingley, Jr. and left that college to attend Dartmouth College. The son does not name what the accusation was.

    I do have to wonder since Nelson was such a crook according to me.

    In both of these colleges Mr. Dingley learned “debating” skills whereby he could “argue and influence” from both “sides of the fence.” He was an advocate of the temperance movement which is a fraud against the people as he was influential in removing the people’s rights to “sell” alcoholic beverages. The people have a right to make a living. Didn’t he know that?

    I rarely drink alcoholic beverages (once a year maybe) but I do believe in the rights of the people so, therefore, I will fight to secure those rights. No public officer operating in a public office has the right to “take away” the people’s rights.

    In 1875 (his legislative address is in my book – only the part about the codification of the constitution) where he suggested to the legislature that they establish a commission (this law is in my book) of eminent men (one of them was a former governor – Edward Kent) to “consider and frame such amendments as seemed desirable, for the action and approval of the legislature, and then submission to the people.”

    This commission of ten (10) men of both parties were to come up with ideas and suggestions to the legislature about codifying the constitution which, in turn, cost $2,044.20 for their work. Just think what this kind of money could purchase in 1875 whereby a loaf of bread was probably 2 to 3 cents a loaf.

    They were paid to come up with ideas and suggestions to the legislature so the said legislature could commit fraud and treason against the people.

    Imagine that!

    Aren’t these eminent men of both parties “accomplices” to the fraud of 1875?

    Yes, indeed!

    They were assigned to this commission and paid to “assist” in the fraud and treason of overthrowing our original, constitutional state.

    Governor Dingley continues to say “The whole subject is commended to your considerate action.”

    Was Governor Dingley also an “accomplice” regarding the overthrow of our original, constitutional state?

    Of course!

    He was an “advocate” (co-operation on his part) of it, and he was “influential” using his “debating” skills to assist in the overthrow of our original, constitutional state.

    Just read his address to the legislature of 1875 pertaining to the “codification” of the constitution.

    If it is NOT on this forum, then I can send it to Dottie.

    I believe this was discussed “behind the scenes” for some time in order to come up with his ideas in his legislative address.

    Three departments (legislative, executive and the judicial) were all involved in this overthrow of our original, constitutional state.

    Chief Justice John Appleton was given the “job” of “arranging and omitting” parts of the constitution which is fraud and treason against the people. He co-operated fraudulently in this matter.

    Article X, Section 4 (original) does NOT allow any arranging and omitting of anything in the constitution by any chief justice and also does not allow the legislature to accept or reject this arranging and omitting.

    What this codification of the constitution did was allow the chief justice and the legislature to operate “above” the constitution rather than operate “underneath” it where they derive their just powers, and this continues today. See LD 1564.

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  7. Hi

    In the book called “The Life and Times of Nelson Dingley, Jr. on page 28 (he was Governor in 1875 – think of the fraudulent 1875 resolve that codified the constitution) it states in part:

    “William G. Crosby (Whig) failed of an election [1853] by the people, but was elected later by the legislature.” He became governor.

    What does “failed of an election by the people” actually mean?

    How does an election fail?

    Unless, of course, there was a tie.

    If true, how can this be lawful?

    It cannot be as the legislature was NEVER given the delegation of authority to elect the governor.

    In 1847 an amendment was passed to allow a “plurality vote” instead of a “majority vote.” It went into effect on July 29, 1848 five years prior to electing Governor Crosby as above-noted.

    A majority vote means that the candidate must receive at least 1/2 of the votes, and a plurality vote means that the candidate must receive the highest number.

    In Article 2, Section 1 of the original Constitution of the State of Maine it says who qualifies to be an elector of the Governor, Senators and Representatives and it doesn’t say that legislature gets to elect the governor.

    In Article IV, Section 5 it states in part: “…but in case no person shall have a majority of votes, the selectmen and assessors shall, as soon as may be, notify another meeting (town/plantation meeting), and the same proceedings shall be had at every future meeting until an election shall have been effected….”

    Section 5 was changed in 1847 to a “plurality vote” but if an election fails (no one received a plurality), then the selectmen/assessors must notify the electors of another meeting in order to vote again.

    No where in the said constitution can the legislature elect the governor so in effect so-called Governor Crosby’s election by the legislature is a fraud, if true.

    This warrants further investigation.

    Fraud does start early in the new republic, if true.

    All for now.

    Comments are welcome.

    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: