News — Pope vs Phifer

In April of 2024, public functionaries from both political parties used over 12,000 unreadable words to put restrictions, requirements, certifications, prohibitions, limitations and then exceptions on FISA.

Why can’t these temporarily-seated public functionaries understand that this doesn’t “Reform Intelligence and Secure America,” as its name implies, it rather expands their usurpation of our Fourth Amendment right to security of person and papers and represents a violation of their limited delegated authorities granted to them by We the People?

Has anyone actually read the original FISA legislation introduced on May 18, 1977, by the late Senator Ted Kennedy and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 that includes approximately 49,000 words?

I didn’t think so.

When I tried to read it, the first thing that jumped out at me, as my eyes were glossing over the “Definitions” outlined on page 1 of this “Act” (that includes 804 Sections), was that “Foreign power” includes being “a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons.”

Not substantially composed of United States persons (So, in other words, there can be a couple of U. S. “persons,” that “compose” a foreign power)? I don’t get it, and I don’t like it.

United States persons?  According to the definition found on Page 1,443 of 22 USC 6010, a United States person includes: “any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States, and any corporation, partnership, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States.”

I wonder if the definition of alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States includes the 2014 estimated 12 million illegal aliens who have “unlawfully” admitted themselves “for permanent residence in the United States?” (this original commentary pointed to a 2014 Homeland Security data analysis that is no longer available, which, by the way, excluded refugees, asylum seekers and non-immigrants). A Report from 2014 published on the Federation for American Immigration Reform website confirms that same 12 million illegal alien estimate.

The more recent numbers, according to FAIR, states that as of 2023 that number has increased to 16.8 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

So, what are our public functionaries doing to uphold their Oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution that was written to Secure the Rights of the lawful residents of these United States? 

Well, on January 17, 2024, they passed House Resolution 957 that “denounced” the White House occupier (usurper) Joe Biden’s administration’s “open-border policies.” HR 957 also “condemns” the “national security and public safety crisis” created by White House vice-occupier usurper (Comrade) Kamala and her co-horts in the DHS and other departments, and HR 957 “urges” Biden to “end his open-border policies.”

Urges? Condemns? Denounces?

How about using delegated authority to throw the bums out of office and into prison for aiding and abetting enemies of our Republic?

The words of these elected and appointed government workers ring hollow when they don’t use their constitutionally provided tools to put a stop to this invasion of our country and to remove this treasonous regime of usurpers and their invading marauders from the bowels of our Republic.

I also find it interesting that the mammoth United States Code is listed on a U. S. Government Publishing website with the byline: Keeping America Informed.  Indeed. Informed of what? The growing Behemoth of Big Government?

The task of attempting to “be informed” about the myriad legalese and loopholes that comprise the revolutionization of our Rule of Law is monumental and, quite frankly, impossible to accomplish (there is little doubt that is the usurpers’ goal).

It would do us well to examine some of the additional myriad words, acronyms, clamps, bells and whistles relative to the groundbreaking (or earth shattering) legislation known as FISA written by the so-called “Lion” of the Senate (or was that “Lyin” - as in what I thought about his cowardly, self-serving self-defense regarding his culpability in the untimely, tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne at the bottom of Poucha Pond on July 18, 1969). But, I digress.

What is FISA, and what are some of the many ways that our public functionaries have usurped our Fourth Amendment cast-in-stone protection against unwarranted searches and seizures?

Well, there is the Terrorist Surveillance Actions developed during the G.W. Bush administration (2001-2009) that are detailed in a New York Times article entitled Bush Let’s U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, both with extensive backgrounds in writing about U.S. National Security issues.

This Administrative-State-beauty-of-countless-words identified as Terrorist Surveillance Actions was a part of The President’s Surveillance Program which included the warrantless surveillance program with the code name Stellar Wind.

Apparently, at the time, the GWB administration joined the late Senator Kennedy in ignoring the Supreme court majority decision in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

And they all ignored the Supreme court (8-0) unanimous decision in United States v. United States District Court, No. 70-153 (known as Keith) (1972).

NOTE: For reasons unknown, “Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of (Keith).” Why aren’t the American people informed of the rationale behind Mr. Rehnquist being MIA?  I'm just askin.'

It is more important to NOTE that both of these cases concurred that wiretapping was indeed included as a violation of our Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches and seizures.

Then there’s

1. The Privacy Act of 1974 (which is 8,253 words long);
2. The Protect America Act of 2007 (2,557 words); 
3. The USA Patriot Act which is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (doncha know). (61,154 words); and 
4. The USA Freedom Act which of course is an acronym for ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015’ (20,950 words).

This is name only a few examples of the on-going usurpation of our Fourth Amendment.

All numbers shown in this commentary are approximate, but, I would bet a huge amount of taxpayers’ fiat currency that nobody has read any of these so-called “laws” in their entirety!

I am also beginning to wonder if any of our temporarily-seated public functionaries have read the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution.  If you, yourself, haven’t looked at our Constitution lately, here are those 54 specific words that comprise the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

What’s that old advertising campaign slogan?  You’ve come a long way, baby? Indeed we have, and if I remember correctly, that ad campaign was about women smoking. Oh, great. You know that the devil is always in the details (sort of like Alexander Hamilton’s unheeded warning in Federalist 84 about adding a Bill of Rights to our Constitution at all, for fear of the usurpers regulating that which is written but never granted to the federal government in the first place).

Alas, it seems that buggy has left the station, probably never to be seen again. In fact, considering the current cache of usurpers posing as public functionaires in this country, if we were to try to eliminate the Bill of Rights in 2024 (God forbid), it would, no doubt, be couched in some big government takeover of even more aspects of our Lives and Liberty.

I wouldn’t doubt that for one big fat legislative minute.

So, as the story goes, the people continue to ratify these actions by complying with them, while our government takes our very specific 54 word limitation upon their power to violate our private domain, and they strip the very essence of our constitutionally-sound protection rug right out from under our feet.

Many people in this country believe that this type of lawless usurpation of our individual Liberty must be stopped. You can check out for yourself the myriad (also unreadable) online opinion pieces that have been written through the years since The battle of FISA Vs the Fourth first began its fateful journey in 1978 (not to mention the grief our de jure President Donald J. Trump is experiencing even today as a result of the lawfare that branches ever outward when we don't protect our rights).

We the People can yet restore constitutional limitations built in to our “republican form of government guaranteed to each State” under Article 4 Section 4 of our Constitution that was written by men who were much more keenly aware of the potential tyranny of the Deep State than we seem to be … the key word here is yet … It’s FISA (153,914 words and counting) versus the Fourth Amendment (54 specific fixed words).

Team Republic is advocating for the underdog Fourth. Our Magnificent Republic already has the legal and lawful tools to demand that our public functionaries adhere to our Founding Principles.

You should join us and help us educate the American populace on the simple truth that The Law Is On Our Side (TLIOOS – here's an acronym for the government bureaucrat busy-bodies who might find their way to the Magnificent Republic).  All are welcome.

Janice Daniels (commentary first written in 2014; updated to present form in 2024 because the situation has only gotten worse).

NOTE:

Congress shall make no law abridging the right to FREE SPEECH - Period.

BECAUSE NORTON V SHELBY COUNTY CLARIFIES THE PRINCIPLES OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC LIKE NO OTHER CASE THAT WE HAVE SEEN TO DATE – THAT’S WHY!

Throughout the years of 1792 through to 1867, it was agreed that The Justices of the Peace were constitutionally delegated as the administrative government in local matters in each County in Tennessee.

This is vitally important because it clarified that only these Justices of the Peace were authorized to issue Bonds and to levy taxes on the people for the payment of these Bonds. 

Along came the temporarily-seated Tennessee State Legislature of 1867 who decided (for some unknown reason) that they had the delegated authority to establish a Board of County Commissioners by virtue of a piece of legislation that was passed on February 25th of that same year. In that piece of legislation (called the Act of March 9, 1867) a special tax was assessed to pay debt taken from the State that was then given to the railroad company.

Why did the Tennessee State Legislature feel compelled to transfer the Constitutionally-delegated authority to a Board that they created out of thin air?

Was it because somebody was getting a quid pro quo? Was it because the Tennessee public functionaries were "usurpers" who wanted to flex the outside reaches of their properly limited delegated authority?

We might never know the truth but thankfully the Tennessee State Supreme Court of 1870 and the U.S. Supreme Court of 1886 both seemed to understand that it was within their proper scope of authority to identify and to put a stop to this type of Legislative "usurpation".

In a case called Pope vs Phifer decided in 1870 (50 Tenn. 682), the State Supreme Court of Tennessee adjudged that the existence and authority of the County Commissioners was unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional because the Legislature had no authority to establish the County Commission and to transfer the powers of administration from the Justices of the Peace to the County Commissioners.

Although the Tennessee State Supreme Court did correctly adjudicate the Principles of the American Republic in Pope vs Phifer, they didn’t define the terms of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by virtue of Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

The case (Pope vs Phifer) was brought to the Tennessee State Supreme Court because the constitutionally-seated Justices of the Peace understood that these County Commissioners had “usurped” authority and that they had no right to bind Shelby County (and it’s tax payers) with a subscription to the railroad company so they wanted the Act of March 9, 1867, declared void and the bond issuance declared illegal.

They first took their case before a Chancellor’s Court for review. The Chancellor’s Court dismissed their case (again for some unknown reason), but then the Justices of the Peace took their case to the Tennessee State Supreme Court on appeal.

While the appeal was pending, payment was made to the railroad company and the bonds were issued by the Commissioners anyway.

Meanwhile (disregarding this State Supreme Court decision), a couple of other Tennessee counties tried the same trick – appointing Commissioners to “usurp” the authority of the Justices of the Peace.

The Governor of Tennessee also seemed to like this Act of "usurpation" so he appointed the same type of Boards of Commissioners in some of the other Tennessee counties. 

In February of 1871, the Tennessee State Supreme Court decided that Governors could not appoint Commissioners to “usurp” authority of constitutionally granted powers given to the Justices of the Peace either.

Even so, these temporarily-seated public functionaries in Tennessee continued to illegally seat Boards of Commissioners to "usurp" the authority of the Justices of the Peace, so, in June of 1871, another similar case, Butterworth v Shelby County, was decided.

In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court reiterated that the Act of March 9, 1867, creating the Board of Commissioners was unconstitutional, so those Boards were also declared illegal and the Warrants that they had issued were shown to be invalid. 

Once again it was determined that the Tennessee State Legislature had exceeded its constitutional duties in assuming to abolish the County Court (Justices of the Peace) and substitute in its place Boards of County Commissioners.

The Act of March 9, 1867, that originally gave the Board of County Commissioners the belief that they could issue bonds was declared a nullity.

The Board and its President had no more powers under the Act than if no law had been passed.

It was also declared that the County Court of Tennessee could not decide contrary to the State Supreme Court or counter to the Federal Constitution.

Apparently the "usurpers" continued to give illegal authority to these Boards of Commissioners that they had formed contrary to the State and Federal Constitutions (sound familiar?). 

So, it was in 1886, when the lynch pin case (Norton v Shelby County) was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was correctly declared that the Federal Court held the State Courts as authoritative (so, in other words, once the Tennessee State Supreme Court had ruled that the existence of the Board of Commissioners was unconstitutional, the Federal Court could not adjudicate differently). That’s called States Rights.

The Supreme Court Justices recognized that conflicts between State and Federal Courts must be avoided, so the U.S. Supreme Court (in a 9-0 unanimous decision) held that there was no lawful authority in the Board to make subscription to the railroad company.

The plaintiffs (in support of the "usurpers") argued in this case (Norton v Shelby County) that even though “the Act” creating the Board of Commissioners was void, the Commissioners who had been appointed were still Officers “de facto” (which means that they could exist because they were there even though they had no official or legal status).

They wanted the Supreme Court Justices to decide that even though the Commissioners were not officers “de jure” (which means that they were seated in accordance with the Constitution or the Laws made pursuant to the Constitution), they should be allowed to have issued the bonds.

The plaintiffs (in support of the “usurpers") further claimed that the Legislative Act, although declared unconstitutional, might still create “an Office” and they argued that nothing further than its “apparent existence” is needed to give validity to the Actions of the Commissioners taken while seated in these decidedly unconstitutional Boards.

The Court stated that there can be no Officers, “de jure” or “de facto” if no Office exists to be filled.

The Court continued by stating that the law never recognized the pretension of persons believing they held Offices that didn’t exist by law. The Commissioners were held to be “usurpers.”

The US Supreme Court stated in Norton vs Shelby County the following:

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed (this applies also to the actions of “usurpers” who might choose to exercise “undelegated” authority).

The Court brought forth the supposition that IF the government were to be entirely “revolutionized” only then can all its departments be “usurped” by force or by the “democratic” voice of the majority, BUT as long as the Constitution or “republican” form of government remains unaltered or Supreme, there can be no “de facto” department or office.

Acts that are not in agreement with the Constitution can only be regarded as valid when or if the government is overturned (which the US Supreme Court of 1886 did not want to see happen; they were simply stating that our government would have to be entirely overturned to cause our Republic to be transformed into a “democracy” and THAT transformation we still do not want to happen – contrary to what our present-day "usurpers" try to force down our throats on a daily basis)!

Generally speaking, Boards, Commissions, Special Counsels and Alphabet Agencies are nothing more than “Usurpers” if the Offices in which they wield their extraordinary power over the people are not established according to the Constitution.

When an Office does exist in accordance with the Constitution(s), all Officers (whether elected or appointed “de facto” or “de jure”) MUST STILL act pursuant to the Constitution(s).

So, again, why is this case so important TODAY?

Because all three departments of our governments, at all levels of governance ARE NOT ACTING IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION(S).

They are NOT ABIDING BY THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THOSE CONSTITUTION(S).

And, these “Stare Decisis” cases give The People the Authority to REMOVE THESE USURPERS FROM THEIR ELECTED OR APPOINTED POSITIONS WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENT.

We the People NEVER authorized these departments to grow like “branches” of a tree.

We the People NEVER authorized these department officers to contort our laws into a ball of yarn that is almost impossible to untangle.

We the People NEVER authorized the building of this awful “Hamster Wheel of Injustice” that our temporarily-seated public functionaries have built, contrary to the duties that we granted to them.

We granted our public functionaries limited delegated authority and we must start demanding that they constrain themselves within that limited delegated authority.

We have the Law on our side.

An action taken outside of the limited delegated authority that We the People granted to our temporarily-seated elected or appointed government workers is a "usurpation" of that authority, and their neglect of their properly delegated limited authority is a violation of their Oaths of Office.

The time has come to Reclaim Our American Republic. The Law is on our side; we simply need to learn it and use it.

Congratulations for finding your way to the Magnificent Republic movement. Now that you are here you can help us give to our children the Republic that was given to us.

Norton vs Shelby County, TN 118 US 425 (1886)

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

One of the Grievances listed in the United States of America’s Declaration of Independence (written in 1776) was that England’s king George “Dissolved representative houses repeatedly … when these representative houses forcefully opposed ... his invasions on the rights of the people.” NOTE: Rewording shown between … and … is mine – for 2024 clarity.

When our Founding Fathers included this particular “Grievance” in the List of Grievances, it suggests to me that even before the U. S. Constitution was written and enacted in 1787 (as the Supreme Law of the Land), the American colonists had already determined that a “republican form of government” was the preferred government of mankind.

Some States, including Tennessee, took important steps to preserve their Republic. A short 83 years after the U. S. Constitution was enacted, the Supreme Court of Tennessee decided a case called Pope v Phifer (50 Tenn. 682, 1870) in which the Tennessee State Supreme Court ruled that the Tennessee State Legislature had no authority to give the Governor authority to create a County Board of Commissioners and assign to them the authority to tax the citizens of that County (the authority to assess taxes upon the residents of the various Counties in the State of Tennessee had been constitutionally assigned to the Justices of the Peace of the Quarterly Courts).

Two years earlier the Tennessee State Legislature passed what was called “The Act of March 12, 1868, c. 65” which was enacted to “Supplant and abolish th(e) ancient institution of the State, known as the Quarterly Court.”  In Pope v Phifer, the Tennessee State Supreme Court Justices declared “The Act of March 12, 1868, c. 65” to be in violation of the Tennessee State Constitution and so it was declared unconstitutional and void (NOTE: I have been unable to find a copy of “The Act of March 12, 1868, c. 65” so I acknowledge that my historical analysis is incomplete without it. That said, it appears to me that this was no small decision).

What was happening in our country in the mid 1800’s that might have caused The (Confederate) State of Tennessee to have appointed a judiciary so bound to the Principles of the American Republic? Was it the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1861 that ushered in Lincoln’s unconstitutional policies or was it the Civil War that was waged under his Presidency from 1861 to 1865 that devastated and destroyed large swaths of our Southern States’ rich and happy lifestyles? NOTE: The disturbing level of Fake News in the Media of our time causes me to believe that the News Media has long been Fake. Could it be that the grand, on-going, never-ending, brutal, hate-filled fiery division between the races of people of this planet was manufactured, promoted and still stoked to this day by the Fake News Media simply because it has been such an effective tool to weaken the once United … States of America?

In 2017, in an article entitled Are You A Jefferson Republican or a Lincoln Republican, written by Ryan Walters, who was the Editor of a newspaper called The Mississippi Conservative Daily (NOTE: Mississippi was another Confederate State), Walters posited that Thomas Jefferson’s “republican form of government” as contemplated by the Democratic-Republican Party of 1792 was organized under the specific policies of “limited government, federalism, economy and accountability, sound money, low taxes and tariffs, no national debt, strict construction of the Constitution, protection of civil liberties, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.”

This was totally upended by the Abraham Lincoln “republican form of government” as contemplated by the Republican Party (formed in 1854) which consisted of “high protective tariffs, direct taxes, federally-funded internal improvements, direct subsidies to big business, and a national banking system with fiat money. The party also supported a loose construction of the Constitution, activist judges, and, beginning in 1898, an interventionist foreign policy.”

Editor Ryan Walters continued, “As President, Lincoln opposed secession (unlike Jefferson), trampled the Constitution, waged war without congressional consent, seized Northern telegraph offices, closed down hostile newspapers, appropriated money without authorization, used troops to intimidate Democrats during elections, illegally suspended habeas corpus, arrested and imprisoned 14,000 citizens without trial, seized control of the Maryland state legislature by arresting key members, banished a congressman to the Confederacy, waged war on civilians, and even contemplated arresting the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for opposing his actions.”

Editor Walters went on to say that “In short, the Founder’s Republic – self determination and constitutional government – ended under Lincoln and the “Yankee Leviathan” State was born.”

And the Fake News Media lionized this guy as “Honest Abe?”

According to a website called Tennessee Virtual Archive, Tennessee’s first State Constitution was adopted in 1796 (still under Walters so-named Jeffersonian Republic). This original Tennessee State Constitution (according to historian J.G.M. Ramsey), was described by Thomas Jefferson as the "least imperfect and most republican of the state constitutions." Late in the secession movement, Tennessee joined the breakaway Republic called the Confederate States of America where 13 Southern States (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky) seceded from the Federal Union of the United States of America. After the Civil War ended, Congress readmitted Tennessee into the Union on July 4, 1866.

For a review of the battle progression and the death toll of the War that America waged upon itself watch The Civil War Animated Map.

For a review of a map of the Southern States and their Resolutions to annul the United States Constitution, see Secession Acts of the 13 Confederate States. NOTE: Tennessee was further internally conflicted on the issue of secession. For a review of the divisional wars within Tennessee that were waged during the Civil War, see Tennessee Encyclopedia Civil War.

Now remember in 1870 (just 4 years after Tennessee’s re-admittance to the Republic of American States), the Tennessee Supreme Court decided Pope v Phifer, a legal case that determined that the Tennessee State Legislature had passed an unconstitutional Act in 1868 that had authorized the Governor of Tennessee to create new Boards, giving those new Boards the authorities that were previously given to the Justices of the Peace in the Tennessee Constitution.

Sounds like something the “Yankee Leviathans” might have done. Well, guess what? According to this List of Tennessee Governors, then Lincoln’s Vice President of the United States Andrew Johnson was appointed by Lincoln to serve (under Union occupation) as the Military Governor of Tennessee from March 12, 1862, to March 4, 1865, before he resigned to become President after Lincoln was assassinated. Prior to that (probably unconstitutional) military appointment, Johnson had been the mayor of Greeneville, TN; he had been a member of the Tennessee State Legislative Department from 1834 through 1853 and he had been the Governor of Tennessee (from 1853 to 1857).

So, in my humble opinion, he had been a career bureaucratic barnacle from Tennessee for about 30 years who kept getting elected as “a (supposed) man of the people.”

Here’s an interesting article published in the University of Virginia’s Miller Center by a Professor of history named Elizabeth A.Varon entitled Andrew Johnson: Life Before the Presidency that will tell you a little bit more about Andrew Johnson than most people outside of Tennessee probably know.

So, it seems, in my humble opinion, that the Executive Department and the Legislative Department of Tennessee were, at the time, seriously compromised by the Yankee Leviathan.

What about the Tennessee State Supreme Court?

Following is a link to a video entitled History of the Tennessee Supreme Court (1796-1900). This video ends without mentioning Pope v Phifer (50 Tenn. 682, 1870) (the legal case that set the stage for exposing government usurpation of the delegated authority of both the Executive and the Legislative Departments of Tennessee), and the video didn't mention the more important U. S. Supreme Court 9-0 decision 16 years after Pope v Phifer called Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425, TN (1886) that cites Pope v Phifer on Page 426 and is considered by some to be the lynchpin case that Defines The Principles of Our American Republic that Pope v Phifer had addressed without defining the terms.

Norton v Shelby County should be required reading for those of us who demand adherence to the Principles of the American Republic(s). To whet your interest, here are the Nine Most Important Points Regarding Norton v Shelby County … (acknowledgment to R. S.)

Nine Most Important Points from Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

1. An unconstitutional act is not a law. If it is not listed in the constitution as a duty or responsibility in the well defined duties of the government it is unconstitutional!
2. An unconstitutional act confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection to any "public functionaries" who have acted as "usurpers" and violated the United States Constitution and/or their State Constitution and/or local Charter and can be removed from office having committed such acts.
3. Only the delegated authority of the citizens as contained in the United States Constitution and/or State Constitution and/or local Charter can create an office "de jure"- for there can be no office "de facto" ( if there is no provision in the United States Constitution and/or State Constitution and/or local Charter then such office "de facto" never existed) It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though such act to create a "de facto" office had never been passed.
4. Public offices can only be created "de jure", and for the benefit of the public.
5. There is no "immunity" for any "public functionary" who does not act "de jure", such "public functionary" by acts of commission or omission can be held personally liable for money damages and be removed from office because they're in violation of his/her oath of office.
6. There can be no office created "de facto" while the Constitution has life and power.
7. Terms defined: "De jure" means by right based on the Constitution or law passed in pursuance thereof. "De facto" means as a matter of fact (simply because some one wants it to be that way), not by law, or Constitution. "Usurpation" means wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement on the duties of one's office. "Public functionary" is the proper term to be used for anyone working for the government either elected or appointed. "Delegation" refers to the fact that the people delegate and/or give to the "public functionaries" duties and responsibilities they must perform while occupying such office as part of their "job description.” "Ratification" is the formal or informal confirmation of an order, law, mandate, etc.
8. If an office of government is not contained in the United States Constitution and or State Constitution and/or local Charter, that "de facto" office is a "usurpation" of authority by the "public functionary" that attempted to created it. Such office never existed to begin with and the "public functionaries"/agents of that office are "usurpers" with no delegated authority whatsoever. At best that office is only advisory, and has no force of law on the people. "Public functionaries" who are "usurpers" are acting outside the "rule of law" and DO NOT EXIST.
9. None of the departments (erroneously referred to as branches) of government - not federal, not state, and not local - can create a "de facto" office.