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.
