Constitution of the State of Maine (1988) Amendment to Clarify the Original Constitutional Resolution Making the Language of the Constitution Gender-Neutral

Courtesy of Lise from Maine

Constitution of the State of Maine (1988) – Amendment

Constitution of the State of Maine (1820)

The so-called amendment of 1988 pertaining to making the language of the constitution gender-neutral is absolute fraud and treason.

Why is that?

First of all, you have to look at the “original” Constitution of the State of Maine (1820) in order to understand “how” the constitution can be amended lawfully. You won’t find this in the “statutory” constitution of 2013 so you have to examine the “origin” of changing the constitution lawfully.

In Article 10, Section 4 it states: “The Legislature, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to this Constitution; and when any amendment shall be so agreed upon, a resolution shall be passed and sent to the selectmen of the several towns, and the assessors of the several plantations, empowering and directing them to notify the inhabitants of their respective towns and plantations, in the manner prescribed by law, at their next annual meetings in the month of September, to give in their votes on the question, whether such amendment shall be made; and if it shall appear that a majority of the inhabitants voting on the question are in favor of such amendment, it shall become a part of this Constitution.”

Take notice of the last part of this article and section where it says that “if it shall appear that a majority of the inhabitants voting on the question are in favor of such amendment, it shall become a part of this Constitution.”

This means that the amendment “itself” MUST (must is mandatory) become a part of the constitution if the inhabitants voting are in favor of it.

Also notice that it says NOTHING about any Chief Justice arranging and rearranging or omitting anything in the constitution plus it says NOTHING
about having the “approval” of the legislature as the 1875 unlawful amendment says. Since 1876 when the 1875 amendment went into effect, the constitution was codified unlawfully, and all constitutions have been codified fraudulently since then.

What the unlawful 1988 amendment does, in fact, is change most of the constitution where the language refers to the male gender such as his, men
and so forth. Even the preamble has been changed from “His” to God’s.

How can this amendment “itself” become part of the lawful constitution?

It cannot as it is an impossibility prescribed by constitutional law.

Furthermore, is it “really” an amendment?

No, it is not.

In fact, most of the constitution was changed to be gender-neutral, and this is unlawful.

What the legislature could have done lawfully is propose an amendment to “include” women in the constitution and have “that” amendment, if approved, become a “part” of the constitution itself.

Thank you!

Published in: on March 17, 2015 at 12:59 pm  Comments (4)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

4 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi!

    Take notice that the 1988 amendment using these terms:

    1. People

    2. Individuals

    3. Person(s)

    Why the use of these 3 terms? Your guess is as good as mine.

    Also take notice that this amendment uses the term “Governor” and also notice that it does NOT use the term CEO as some people believe that Governor LePage is in his public capacity.

    Furthermore, the “statutory” constitution of 2013 also uses the term “Governor” and NOT CEO.

    So if Governor LePage is the CEO of this “statutory” state, then please provide the “evidence” showing that he actually is.

    I have NOT found anything in the so-called many, many, many laws that I have seen in my investigation that shows that the “Governor” is a CEO.

    I will continue using the term “Governor” unless I am shown by evidence that Governor LePage is the CEO of this codified, statutory state.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  2. The constitution no matter what year one of the people put it down on paper is nothing more than (in Geo. W’rs) words a GD piece of paper, it protects the people from nothing, just think if I write on a piece of paper and call it a constitution, give myself and my posterity permission to tax you and your posterity for eternity, what sort of protection is that? the original concept as I understand, was sold as guidelines for all elected and appointed servants, and it was/is only binding on those that swear/affirm and oath, the rest were not effected without consent, but the servants and all oath takers were/are bound by there word/oath. Now the corporation STATE OF MAINE comes along alters this thing called the constitution to make itself sovereign over the people and declare ‘We The People’ subjects, with no authority to do so except the people’s not paying attention and they have the guns and claim some authority through there altered constitution, of course this is all execration from the back end of a bull, but again they have the guns, and a phony court system.
    A real Government (De jure) is under oath to protect the peoples RIGHTS, by virtue of our humanity, or from a higher power depending on your beliefs, of course we no longer have a de jure govt. we have a for profit corporation titled “STATE OF MAINE” listed as such with Dunn and Bradstreet where it says “OFFICE OF GOVERNOR” Paul Lepage Manager (WHAT), and I have read about a lot of corporations and none of them list a Governor as their head, you have in your mists a corporation called “We The People Inc.” do you have a Governor heading up that corporation?
    You are free to call Paul Lepage anything you like, call him King Paul if you like, nothing changes we are still stuck with the same corporation robbing us blind while masquerading as Government, we are still stuck with a phony court system, we are still stuck with a police STATE, we are still stuck with an altered constitution feigning sovereignty for a corporation “STATE OF MAINE”, with Paul Lepage as Governor, CEO, Manager, take your pick, for the purpose of educating the people I pick CEO.

  3. The first comment above had a lot of bluster to be followed by so much silence, and as for what the 1988 Amendment references as the so-called leader, you can put that into the same category as their use of the three terms you had no understanding of.

  4. Lise: Does your lack of rebuttal mean you will be referring to Paul Lapage as CEO from now on?

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: