Published on Apr 17, 2014
“Meet the Coalition of Western States Legislators formed in reponse to the Bundy Ranch Standoff.”
Published on Apr 17, 2014
“Meet the Coalition of Western States Legislators formed in reponse to the Bundy Ranch Standoff.”
Courtesy of Lise from Maine
PUBLIC LAWS OF THE STATE OF MAINE AS PASSED BY THE One Hundred and Seventh Legislature AT THE FIRST SPECIAL SESSION January 19, 1976 to April 29, 1976 AND THE SECOND SPECIAL SESSION June 14, 1976.
1977, Chap. 6 CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENTS – redistribution of powers to the Legislature to select or reject judges. View HERE.
Original Constitution of Maine (1820), click here.
Pursuant to the original constitution (1820) Art 5 sec 8, the governor shall nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Council, appoint all judicial officers…..
This 1977 Act contradicts the original constitution.
The legislature (Judiciary Committee) has no authority to be involved in the acceptance or rejection of any nomination and appointment of judges.
Phil Merletti Commentary on “A System In Crisis” – Judicial Confirmation Hearing of William J. Schneider, click here.
“A System In Crisis”, view HERE. (Judiciary Committee hearing)
LD 1541 HERE.
Summary LD 1541 HERE.
BDN reports “Maine House debates bill to dock lawmakers’ pay if state shutdown occurs, puts off vote.”
“If the state can’t manage to avoid a shutdown, then lawmakers shouldn’t get paid. That was the argument made Tuesday by Portland Democrat Diane Russell on the floor of the House of Representatives.
In the event of a state government shutdown, state employees throughout Maine’s 16 counties would go without pay until the government opens again. Rep. Russell said it’s only fair that if thousands of employees are suddenly left in the lurch, lawmakers should feel a pinch as well.
The Legislature’s State and Local Government Committee voted 11-1 late in February that the bill “ought not to pass.” That recommendation hit the floor of the House [today].
House Majority Leader Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, tabled the bill to give his members a chance to discuss the bill in a caucus.
The bill could be taken up in the House again as soon as Wednesday.”
Read more HERE.
“Can a state legislator adequately balance all interests when holding a second elected office?
This practice is usually referred to as “dual office-holding.” Dual office-holding is generally defined as the practice of holding two elected offices at the same time at the state or local levels, paid or unpaid.
States generally have taken three main approaches in restricting state legislators from concurrently holding a second elective office. The first approach, taken by all territories and 47 states categorically prohibits a legislator from holding another statewide elected office. (Indiana, West Virginia and Wyoming have some limited exceptions.)
Under the second approach, 25 of those 47 states and the three territories prohibit state legislators from holding any other elected office at the county or municipal level in addition to the state level. The states taking this second approach are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
The third approach is followed by 18 states. In those states a legislator may not hold a second state level elected office, but allow the legislator to hold a second county or municipal office if those offices are not “incompatible.” These states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
Further variations are in Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Oregon and Virginia, where a legislator is allowed to hold a second elected county or municipal office only when the second office is not considered lucrative. Generally, an office is considered lucrative when the office-holder receives compensation or remuneration beyond reimbursement for actual expenses incurred.
West Virginia adds another element by saying the second elected position cannot be lucrative or incompatible. Wyoming prohibits a state legislator from holding any other public elective office that receives any funding from the State of Wyoming.
The District of Columbia does not neatly fit into the above listed categories of restrictions on dual office holding because it is governed by a single legislature with no municipal or county governments. However, D.C. does prohibit a person from holding the office of member of the House of Delegates if he or she holds another public office that is considered to be lucrative.
In states that do not address the legitimacy of holding two elected offices at the same time by statute or constitution, the question is generally answered by the state’s courts. Most state courts base their ruling on the “doctrine of incompatibility of office” where the court compares the specifics of the two particular elected offices at issue, looks at the duties of the two offices, and decides if one of the offices is subordinate to the other or if there are inconsistencies between the duties of the two offices. If so, the offices are “incompatible,” and a legislator cannot hold both positions at the same time.”
To note, Maine State Representative Alan Casavant is also Mayor of the City of Biddeford.
The people are on to you! Your psychopathic condition of speaking out of both sides of your mouth is revealing. You want the people to believe one side of your mouth as you attempt to deceive on the other side of your mouth.
For The People reports “The Lying, Cheating Butt-Wipes On Capitol Hill Have Screwed Us Again!
On Friday, September 20, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of the Continuing Resolution (H.J.RES.59), a bill to keep the government running through December 15. The bill will force a showdown with the Senate because it includes a provision to defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.
You’d say, but that’s a good thing, right? Well, it WOULD be IF the butt-wipes in the house hadn’t piggy-backed ObamaCare to this resolution. Why is that important?” Read more, click here.
BDN reports “With this week’s resurgent interest in royalty, here’s a sampling — not a comprehensive list — of Maine families and other combinations that qualify as their own brand of Maine dynasty.”
“Baldacci: Brothers John, Gerry and Joe got their start on the Bangor City Council, following in the footsteps of their father, Robert, who was active in Democratic Party politics. John then served six terms in the state Senate, four in the U.S. House and two as governor. Now, current Councilor Joe Baldacci is eyeing a run for his brother’s old congressional seat. Meanwhile, brother Peter Baldacci has long served as a Penobscot County commissioner, and sister Rosemary made a bid for the Maine House in the early 1990s. Outside of elected office, brother Bob has chaired the Finance Authority of Maine, and sister Lisa has worked on Capitol Hill and as a Maine political operative. Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell isn’t part of the Baldacci dynasty, but he’s a relative. Mitchell’s mother and Gov. Baldacci’s grandmother were sisters who immigrated from Lebanon.
Mills: Peter Mills is the third Sumner Peter Mills to serve in the Maine Legislature. His grandfather, from Stonington, served one term in the Maine House and two in the Senate between 1903 and 1908. Father Sumner P. Mills Jr. of Farmington, a Republican, served three terms in the House and two in the Senate between 1939 and 1970. And S. Peter Mills III of Cornville, a Republican, served seven Senate terms and one House term between 1995 and 2010. Democratic sister Janet served three terms in the Maine House and is serving her second term as attorney general. In 1994, she challenged John Baldacci in the Democratic primary for the 2nd Congressional District seat. Sister Dora Anne is former head of the Maine Center for Disease Control. Peter Mills’ wife, Nancy, is a Superior Court justice.
Pingree-Sussman: Before her election to the U.S. House in 2008, Democrat Chellie Pingree served four terms in the Maine Senate, including two as majority leader, between 1993 and 2000. She unsuccessfully challenged Republican Sen. Susan Collins for her seat in 2002. Meanwhile, her daughter Hannah served four terms in the Maine House, including one as majority leader and one as speaker. Both Pingrees’ names swirl in speculative circles when the focus turns to future statewide races. The Pingree family added fortune in 2011 when Chellie married Donald Sussman, a major Democratic donor in Maine and across the country.
Collins: U.S. Sen. Susan Collins’ two parents, Donald and Patricia, served as mayors of Caribou. Donald served one term in the Maine House and four in the Senate between 1971 and 1992. Susan Collins worked on Capitol Hill for former Sen. William Cohen, served as Gov. John McKernan’s commissioner of professional and financial regulation and ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1994 before she was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996. Patricia Collins became the second woman to chair the University of Maine System board of trustees in the early 1990s.
King-King-King: It’s admittedly a stretch to call this a dynasty since there are no blood relations, but there’s no denying those with the last name King have played a major role in Maine politics. Maine’s first governor was William King, who held the office from 1820 to 1821. Unrelated Angus King became Maine’s 72nd governor and is now its newest senator. Meanwhile, Bangor author Stephen King and wife Tabitha are major Democratic donors.
Beliveau: One of the State House’s most influential lobbyists, Severin Beliveau served a term each in the Maine House and Senate in the late 1960s. He is a former Maine Democratic Party chairman, and he ran in the 1986 Democratic gubernatorial primary, losing to then-Attorney General James Tierney. Son Emmett is an aide in the Obama White House, and son Devin served a term in the Maine House (2010-2012). Severin’s father, Albert, was a Maine Supreme Court justice and grandfather Matthew McCarthy was the first municipal court judge in Rumford. Uncle William McCarthy was a Superior Court judge, and brother Albert was an Oxford County probate judge.
Snowe-McKernan: This special brand of Republican dynasty began with Peter Snowe, who was killed in a car accident during his second Maine House term. Olympia Snowe won the special election to replace her first husband, spawning a 40-year career in elective office. Snowe and John McKernan dated while they represented Maine in the U.S. House. They married in 1989, during McKernan’s first term as governor. Snowe was elected to the Senate in 1994, becoming the first woman in history to serve in both chambers of her state Legislature and both houses of Congress. Peter Snowe met Gov. Paul LePage as a teenager and persuaded Husson College to let LePage take the entrance exam in his native French.
Woodcock: Penobscot County Judge of Probate Allan Woodcock Jr. retired last year as the state’s longest serving probate judge. Nephew John A. Woodcock serves as chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Maine. John’s son, Patrick, is LePage’s energy director and a former Snowe aide. John’s brother Tim is a Bangor lawyer and a former Bangor mayor and councilor. Sister Elizabeth Woodcock is an assistant attorney general in New Hampshire.
Longley: Maine’s first independent governor, James Longley, served one term in the Blaine House (1975-1979). His son, Republican James Longley Jr., served a term in the U.S. House (1995-1997), representing Maine’s 1st District, and unsuccessfully challenged Angus King for governor in 1998.
Martin: While not part of a political family, John Martin became a major power broker in his 19 terms in the Maine House — including nine as speaker — and four in the Senate. Some called him the Earl of Eagle Lake.
But Martin himself proved Maine is no monarchy. He lost power last year when he came up short in his bid for re-election to the House.”
Baldacci – Business As Usual. Source: LANCE TAPLEY
Baldacci swears in judges with area roots. ”The swearing-in ceremony for five Maine judges seemed more like a family reunionthan an official event.”
ORESTIS-HARPER’S DEVELOPMENT (SACO ISLAND) …….. involves Senator (now Rep.) Barry “hobnobs” Hobbins.
There are a number of nominees that could be added to this list….do you know anyone?
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 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.
Why do our local, county and state representatives just sit back and not question? Why do they accept this? This speaks volumes about the character, honesty, integrity and incompetency of our elected officials.
The Maine Wire reports “Maine Democrats Suspend Transparency Rules.” State Democratic leaders have suspended a rule providing for transparency in the proceedings of the Legislature.
Senate President Justin L. Alfond (D-Cumberland) and Speaker of the House Mark W. Eves (D-North Berwick) informed lawmakers in an email Wednesday that they are suspending the public notice requirement for advertising public hearings. Read more.
Freedom of Access Act request is pursuant to “Title 1, MRS, Chapter 13, Section 408-A – public records available for public inspection and copying.” The agency or official may charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost of copying.
WHY IS FALMOUTH REP. MARY NELSON, TRYING TO PUNISH ALL THE RESIDENTS OF MAINE? Read more, click here.