The Enacting Clause
- Saturday 24 january 2009
For anything to be regarded as law, it has to come
from some authority. From that source of autority,
there has to exist a relationship between the source
and those to whom the law(s) affect.
In each state, [or at least in most, for I have not
checked], the authority of law, as determined by
each state's constitution, comes from the legislature.
In order to have the force and effect of law, each
law is required to have an enacting syle or clause
in order for the law(s) to be valid.
Without a valid law, as evidenced by an enacting clause,
no court can acquire subject matter jurisdiction = no
complaint, for without a valid law, any complaint is
insufficient in law.
For example, in Illinois, one of the forms that all
laws are constitutionally required to follow is the
law must contain an enacting style or clause like
Article IV section 8(a) The enacting laws of this
State shall be:
"Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly."
Any time you are charged with some kind of violation,
at least make sure there is an enacting clause. You
find this out by looking for the enacting clause at
a law library.
One way for states to circumvent the constitution is
to create an administrative agency, which is not a
creation by the constitution, so it does not have to
guarantee rights found in a constitution because it
is a legislative creation, with its own set of laws.
Whenever some administrative agency is attempting to
enforce its onerous rules/regulations and excessive
fines, read the enacting clause to see what powers
were given to the agency by the legislature. It would
not be unusual for an agency to exceed its authority
because no one bothers to check its limts or question
[Alma, if you are reading this, you now begin to
understand why Americans "get what we deserve" by
failing to know the rules. No one says that the
establisment wants to make it easy to hide their
abuses and deceptions.]
- Saturday 24 January 2009
Real life example:
Over a period of time, on 9 occasions I did not
have change to use a tollroad where the only
access is an automated toll entrance with no
change, and FRNs cannot be used.
One day, I receive an administrative determination
that in addition to the $14 in unpaid tolls, I have
to pay an additional $20 per violation, total due,
As is my right, I demand an administrative hearing.
I read up on the administrative rules and learned that
I have the right to cross-examine witness(es), and
the right to challenge photographic evidence for
which a proper foundation has not been laid in the
Hearing date: [HO = hearing officer]
HO: "Please identify the license plate and vehicle on
the computer screen."
Me: Absolutely not! I object to the images on a
computer screen as improper and irrelevant.
HO: "Objection overruled. For the record, the
Tollway has established a prima facie case against the
Me: Objection! I demand a witness from the Tollway
that I can cross-examine.
Me: I object to the use of these unidentified images
on a computer screen as irrelevant and hearsay.
Long story short, the HO prints out a form and hands
it to me. "OFFICER'S FINAL ORDER"...
"JUDGMENT TOTAL: 194"
Me: Wait a minute! What does "194" mean?
Me: Dollars of what?!
[Understand that this guy does not like me for all
the questions and demands I made throughout this
sham proceding, so he responds in an intended
HO: "Canadian dollars. Now get out of here!"
I just smiled and walked away.
Know that my Notice and Demand to Dismiss includes
the fact that Canadian dollars were demanded of me.
The day after that administrative hearing, I sent
the Tollway Authority a Notice and Demand for
specification as to what it was demanding from me.
Not what I might be able to volunteer, but precisely
what was being lawfully demanded as an exactment?
A monthe later, a "Motion To Dismiss Or In The
Alternative a Specification of Errors" from the
State's Attorney General, authorized to represent
the Tollway, arrives in reponse to my Notice and
Demand To Dismiss.
In the Tollway motion is stated, my "Notice and
Demand for remedy sets forth a unique argument that
plaintiff does not know what a judgment of $194.00
is supposed to mean."
[Now the $ and ".00" has been added]
Two paragraphs later is stated, "The hearing officer's
final order from which that phrase is taken from,
states in the coupon that the 'amount due is $194.00'"
[Now a coupon is referenced to back up a judgment.]
The next sentence concludes, "This clearly means US
Court date, 3 February.
more, but not sure when...