ChristiTutionalist (TM) Politics

ChristiTutionalist Politics (S1E8) "Norton v Shelby County TN Case"

August 12, 2023 Joseph M. Lenard Season 1 Episode 8
ChristiTutionalist Politics (S1E8) "Norton v Shelby County TN Case"
ChristiTutionalist (TM) Politics
More Info
ChristiTutionalist (TM) Politics
ChristiTutionalist Politics (S1E8) "Norton v Shelby County TN Case"
Aug 12, 2023 Season 1 Episode 8
Joseph M. Lenard

Send us a Text Message.

S1E8 SHOW NOTES ( listen (Sat Aug 12 2023 and thereafter) at: )...
ChristiTutionalist Politics (S1E8) "Norton v Shelby County TN Case"
Topic "Norton v Shelby, and Government over-reach / usurpation" piece! 
Case many trying to bring back to fore and attach as part of supportive arguments of "Government overreach (usurpation)" challenge of Alphabet Agencies acting far outside their purview (designed, and legitimately "authorized" by Congress scope) case to SCOTUS. "In the weeds" discussion for advanced Patriots looking to Restore Our American Republic. Not topic for "casual conversation" to broach "strangers at the local Supermarket!" Often, those able to be awakened from woke stupor, need be taken in baby-steps and at their "digestible" own pace (often slowly) and therefore topic one that can/may overwhelm someone early on in their "new Political awakening journey!"

Episode related pieces...
- Savaged Unfiltered full Video LIVESTREAM: 
- Klaus Schwabb and Agenda21/2030/whatever:  
- EPA and other AlphabetAgenices overreach:   
- DOEd must go: Norton v Shelby: 
- William Wagner (Constitutional Scholar) discusses related issues    
  as our Founders INSISTED there must be checks-and-balance, today's Fasci-Federalists avoid 

- FaithCasters Free Newsletter:  
- CTP Official playlist:  

(S1E8 Audio: 37m 53s, Sat Aug 12th 2023)

Support the Show.

Joseph M. Lenard SUBSCRIBE-

ChristiTutionalist Politics +
Become a supporter of the show!
Starting at $3/month
Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

Send us a Text Message.

S1E8 SHOW NOTES ( listen (Sat Aug 12 2023 and thereafter) at: )...
ChristiTutionalist Politics (S1E8) "Norton v Shelby County TN Case"
Topic "Norton v Shelby, and Government over-reach / usurpation" piece! 
Case many trying to bring back to fore and attach as part of supportive arguments of "Government overreach (usurpation)" challenge of Alphabet Agencies acting far outside their purview (designed, and legitimately "authorized" by Congress scope) case to SCOTUS. "In the weeds" discussion for advanced Patriots looking to Restore Our American Republic. Not topic for "casual conversation" to broach "strangers at the local Supermarket!" Often, those able to be awakened from woke stupor, need be taken in baby-steps and at their "digestible" own pace (often slowly) and therefore topic one that can/may overwhelm someone early on in their "new Political awakening journey!"

Episode related pieces...
- Savaged Unfiltered full Video LIVESTREAM: 
- Klaus Schwabb and Agenda21/2030/whatever:  
- EPA and other AlphabetAgenices overreach:   
- DOEd must go: Norton v Shelby: 
- William Wagner (Constitutional Scholar) discusses related issues    
  as our Founders INSISTED there must be checks-and-balance, today's Fasci-Federalists avoid 

- FaithCasters Free Newsletter:  
- CTP Official playlist:  

(S1E8 Audio: 37m 53s, Sat Aug 12th 2023)

Support the Show.

Joseph M. Lenard SUBSCRIBE-

[ChristiTutionalist Politics podcast begin Show intro]

Welcome to "ChristiTutionalist Politics"  Over time the fancy high-production items will come, but for now, for starters, it is just you as a listener that I can barely begin to express how much appreciate from the bottom of my Heart you tuning in -- as I know you have alot of options as ListenNotes the podcast platform Reports there are about 168.9 MILLION available Podcast show episodes you could choose from and I appreciate YOU taking the time to listen to ME. As indeed it is just me on the podcast out side (at least for the initial episodes), all substance no muss no fuss, no fluff, no fancy or flahsy high-production intro or inserts - just straight to key discussion points. A show that looks at variety of topics, mostly Politics, through a Christian U. S. Constitutionalist lens (hence ChristiTutionalist Politics Show name). This is S1-Exx  "SHOW TITLE HERE." I am your Host Joseph M. Lenard (and last-name is spelled L-E-N-A-R-D, like most pronounce Leonard but without the "o"), an Author of a very "non-traditional" but Christian none-the-less "Christian book," co-host of SAVAGED UNFILTERED podcast, and for purposes of this Show most notably blogger for from which most of the content for this Show will be derived. These are NOT going to be long-drawn-out episodes, just the highlights and food-for-thought you can then delve deeper into via my online articles and reach your own conclusions. As Graham Norton would say: LET'S GET ON WITH THE SHOW!

[ChristiTutionalist Politics podcast begin opening - Segment 1] 

Welcome to season one episode eight, Norton versus Shelby County Tennessee. 

This episode is going to go a bit into the weeds farther than like to normally go. Normally, I like to try to keep a 30,000 foot view of things. Norton versus Shelby is an old case about government "overreach" is the term I'm going to use here. But the actual technical term, of course, is usurpation. I'd want to mention an article here. And yes, it will be listed in this show notes about terminology and the things we lead with in discussions. 

Norton v Shelby is not something that you're going to want to jump in with someone you've just met at the grocery store. This is for your group of friends that can handle going down the deeper rabbit holes and the more technical aspects of things that we need to discuss. It's like the Hunter Biden laptop. I was speaking with a friend the other day, Janice Gardner, no relation to Michael Gardner of Savaged Unfiltered podcast. Janice Gardner and I were talking just the other day. And she mentioned Waco and Ruby Ridge. And my reaction was we can barely get people to pay attention to the Hunter Biden laptop. Something happening right now, let alone while Waco and Ruby Ridge are important points to go down the path of all these government abuses that have been going on for a long time. This isn't new, but those are not something you want to lead with. 

There are certain topics we have to be careful. Our red pill strategy, certain topics like the Hunter Biden laptop, the evidence is there. The facts are there. If we can't get them to pay attention to that and the evidence on that laptop, then it's going to be difficult to get them to go down any of the other more difficult rabbit holes like the Norton v Shelby case. I'll wrap up with a third segment. I will discuss a couple of 9 points that my friend, John and Ron, with a Liberty group put together regarding the case. I'm not going to go that deep into the weeds here yet. Again, at the start here, I want to take an overall broader view. Also, let me point out that the case document will be linked in the show notes. There will be a link to a dropbox document of the case so that if you want to go further down that rabbit hole, please do read it. Look at that for yourself. Share it with others that you know are of the degree and level that can handle such. Don't overburden someone who just got off their couch yesterday. This is way too deep a topic for them to take on early in their adventures into getting involved in politics, which ChristiTutionalist Politics show is partly about getting people off their couch. 

Again, I've written a piece called "Will real Christians save America" (link in show notes) as we can't be sitting on our couch and complaining online. We have to do the things that matter. We have to become precinct delegates. We have to go to committee meetings. We have to go to school board meetings. We have to go to city council meetings. We must be involved to put pressure on people even within the Republican party. I'm not just talking about fighting FASCICRATS ( here. I'm talking also about fighting CINOs and RINOs within bring the primary is RINO season, as they say. And the fall is jackass season. You fight the RINOs in the CINOs in the primary and you pull the Republican straight ticket in the fall because even a RINO, someone who's only with me or you, us, 60% of the time, is still infinitely better than a FASCICRAT who we might agree with what 10% of the time if that. So RINO season is in the spring. Jackass season is in the fall. 

No king, but king Jesus. That was a mantra of our founders. So spare us the our founders weren't really Christian. They weren't really religious. That's all a bunch of bunk, of course, from the freedom from religion foundation. There's no such thing. We have a First Amendment freedom of religion. And there's no such constitutional or law about separation of church and state. That comes from a Thomas Jefferson letter that the left distorts and takes out of context tries to apply it as if it is some legal or constitutional bearing and legitimate restriction. And that's not true. You have no reason to not bring your Christian faith and apply it to your politics. The left is I like to say . Their motto really is separation from church to state, not separation of church and state. And Neil MAmmen my friend - his book: Jesus is involved in politics. Why aren't you and why isn't your church? 

So the deep state is like a monarchy. Unelected, with little oversight that the Congress is supposed to provide. The deep state acts on its own filled with leftist, of course, because conservatives, ChristiTutionnalists are busy trying to pursue life and happiness, right, our pursuit of happiness, life and liberty. They are tyrannical and want to lord over us. But again, no king, but King Jesus and these alphabet soup agencies do not. A lot of them have any legal constitutional authority, let alone legitimate congressional authority. Many of them have way overstepped the congressional limitations put upon them when they were created as an agency by an act of Congress. 

In segment two, I will be playing snippets from a live stream July 1 Savaged Unfiltered podcast, myself, Michael and Sadia discuss some of these issues. So I'm not going to go into them here. We will go into them in segment two, no king, but King Jesus. Yes, I know I've repeated it for a third time, right? Our founders were religious. They didn't want a monarchy. And the deep state basically acts as unelected bureaucrats. We can't get rid of. They're not elected. They get hired and you can't fire these people. The governmental unions, even FDR, the biggest pro union guy on the planet, Mr. Progressive himself said, there is no business for being government unions. Unions are for the private sector. The government is supposed to respond directly to "We The People" and the Congress at our own pleasure. They are AT WILL Employees. They are to serve and they must go from time to time. They cannot have lifelong 50 year careers acting as Monarchs rather than Employees, lording over us. 

I am now going to go into the Savaged Unfiltered July 1 Rumble livestream we did regarding Norton v Shelby. Most importantly, pay attention to my argument with Sadia regarding the EPA and the Department of Education when it comes to the alphabet soup and then way over stepping over reach, usurpation technically. But again, you use that word. You're going to lose a lot of people. So yes, we have to bring it down to a level that we can converse with a common language and over reach is something everyone can understand. You, serfation is a term that is just not in many people's vocabulary. And Sadia defends the deep state. I was frankly amazed at it. And from there, we will lead into the Savaged Unfiltered livestream. And then after that, we will be back for a wrap up segment three before the show outro.

[ChristiTutionalist Politics podcast begin Segment 2]
MICHAEL GARDNER (Host of Savaged Unfiltered):  We are live on rumble. So welcome to today's show guys, we're going to talk about the Norton v Shelby case of 1886. Yes. So why are we talking about it? Because no one is and it should be talked about. 

JOSEPH M LENARD: The case is old. However, people want to try to bring it up again and make a deal out of it. It may have been too long ago. A precedent generally will only last for so long. And then other case law will supplant it. And that may be the case here. But under that, we can and could challenge some of these regulations and rulings that come out of these deep state organizations, the alphabet agencies that technically are unconstitutional and illegal and are not duly real elected officials appointed bureaucrats with no legal authority over us.

MICHAEL GARDNER (Host of Savaged Unfiltered):  I agree. I really do. You know, where do you think Joseph, I heard bits and pieces of it because I came into the stream as you were talking, but what do you think? I mean, do you think this Norton v Shelby thing is going to disappear soon or or people are going to talk about it more?

JOSEPH M LENARD:  Well, it's been gone for decades. It's been basically lost here in Michigan. John Tatar, who ran for Wayne County Sheriff in the last election, is one of a group of people who are trying to reintroduce it into the lexicon of the legal posturing and see if they can get it back into our consciousness and discussing it. And indeed, find out whether other presidencies have supplanted it or potentially a scotus ruling they're just not looking at or overlooking or, you know, I hate to say, maybe ignoring because it's not convenient. Obviously, everybody wants to posture in position and present the things that are beneficial to their side. There are, in this case, it's my side, but their agenda, our agenda in this case, Michigan is referenced in some of the materials. It brings together other states and other things. But yeah, it's primarily a Tennessee case. 

MICHAEL GARDNER (Host of Savaged Unfiltered): So here's my thing, you know, this this Norton versus Shelby, you know, case of, you know, go it back to 1886. 

SADIA CARONE: So let me make sure that I'm on the same page as everybody. So Shelby County issued bonds because they were indebted to a railroad company. But the people issuing these bonds weren't the actual recognized government. Is that correct? 

JOSEPH M LENARD: More or less. Again, yeah, not duly elected officials, you have you can't have some third party alphabet agency that is removed.

MICHAEL GARDNER (Host of Savaged Unfiltered):  Yeah, yeah, definitely happens. So guys, we want to put a graphic on here. Hopefully everybody can hear me. I'm not sure exactly what's going on with with Rumble or yeah, go ahead, Sadia.

SADIA CARONE:  So I was able to do a little bit of research. And I can understand why it's important. You can't have people running around saying that the part of the government, if they're not, and you know, taxing property, which I imagined is what people are worried about now. You know, there's a lot going on. There's a lot going on. You know, I'm upset that we're putting illegal immigrants in hotels in New York and kicking out veterans, you know, there is a lot. I think this is an important case. I think it's important that we talk about it now. From what it looks like, there never was a commissioner in that county. And some guy was just like, Hey, yo, I'm the commissioner, I'm going to raise this money. And that's not okay. If you claim to be a duly elected official, you had better be a duly elected official. That's what I took from it.

JOSEPH M LENARD:  My concern is expanding it beyond that. The point being again, even though a commission may be appointed, the technicality, whether or not, like in this case, he was not appointed by a duly elected official, even to a commission to say he's working on behalf of the elected government. I think it can could and should be pushed to the Supreme Court even further that these alphabet agencies, even though created by Congress, are not re-convinced. Plain and simple. I mean, you know, like this, this is, if they're not re-upped every 10 years, they should be sunsetted, right? The Congress needs to re-approve these agencies because the Congress changes every two years. They're not bound by a previous Congress. And these agencies cannot be left to be running rogue. They need to come back to the Congress and say, here's our charter, here's our mission. This is what we intend to do. You re-up us or you don't. Can't be appointed king. That's the point here. We left the monarchy.

SADIA CARONE: Joseph, do you think the FBI needs to establish its validity every 10 years in the CIA? Or we talking in more like local level kind of stuff?

JOSEPH M LENARD: Every agency. Have a more unconstitutional to  begin with. So yes, we have our discussion.

SADIA CARONE:  Okay, the FBI, from what I understand, was created because let's say somebody commits a crime in Nevada, but crosses the border into California. No problem. To settle the argument of who has to track down the bad guy, the minute you cross straight state lines, BAM, FBI. It's now a federal thing. 

JOSEPH M LENARD: But they have gone way beyond that. Take the EPA. Richard Nixon, not all that long ago, in my lifetime, created the EPA, the same argument. This only affects cross-state issues. They've way gone beyond their constitutional and allowed authority under the laws which they were created. Can you give an example? The EPA, regulating ponds as wetlands. You have no authority. That is an in-state issue. Get the hell out of my bleepin bleepin bleepin backyard. You do not have the authority. 

MICHAEL GARDNER (Host of Savaged Unfiltered): I mean, Joseph, I agree with you. But here's something here I want to plug into the show here with the woman reached out. In a courtroom about this issue, like I said, folks, the video is very, very, very old. So you're going to want to check this video out.

JANICE DANIELS:  Hi, my name is Janice Daniels. I'm with Michigan Conservative Union. I'm a board member. And I'm also a board member of the Election Integrity Fund and Force. The presentation that I was asked to make this evening was on Election Integrity. You might be kind of surprised because my slide says America is a republic and we intend to keep it. So what am I talking about? Is that Election Integrity? I think that there is a great intersectionality between Election Integrity and Republicanism. Now, do I mean the Republican Party? No, I do not. In fact, at this point in my life, it's like goodness to the Republican Party. If the Republican Party followed their platform, I would agree with what the Republican Party stands for, but they don't. And that is sad and maybe we, the people, can get them to understand that they need to follow their platform. We're going to talk about good versus evil because quite frankly, I think that this all boils down to the great battle that has been going on since the beginning of time that is good versus evil. We have a modern day republic in America that is unsurpassed in the history of the world throughout time. America's modern republic is so unique and so vital to success that, for example, Cleon Schausen wrote a book called The 5,000 Year Leap in which he said the American form of government advanced society by 5,000 years in terms of the technological growth.

MICHAEL GARDNER (Host of Savaged Unfiltered):  So basically, guys, you heard, I mean, you heard this woman reaching out, I guess very concerned about our republic. She's concerned about the well-being of our future, a lot of different things. I mean, everything is on the line here. Voting integrity, you know, we feel like in the last election, you know, that slipped away. And it was more about, you know, people's power than for the people. That's my own personal opinion and my own aspect of how I'm seeing this. I'm seeing our republic folks literally being stripped away. It's being stripped away from its power. How can we restore our republic when elected officials are not even standing by the damn words? Right.

JOSEPH M LENARD: Well, number one, mama bears and papa bears need to go to school board meetings and you need to wear a roar restore American republic shirt when you're doing that hint hint go to But yeah, that woman, Janice Daniels, I know her personally she used to be a WAAM radio host, a great person, very knowledgeable. And indeed, it's funny that she mentioned about republic-ism. She said republican-ism. I said on my Facebook set page under Martin Kieler, because I have to be under an alias there, my count of 20 years was banned long ago, of course. But I say on my Facebook page, I am here for republic-ism, not republican party hackism. So kind of the same thing. 

MICHAEL GARDNER (Host of Savaged Unfiltered): Yeah. So so so here's my thing, Joseph, you know, like with this whole Norton verse, Shelby, you know, like this, I think I think more needs to be done, Joseph, that that's plain and simple. Just more needs to be done. 

JOSEPH M LENARD: Part of the process is education. And we're doing that today. I wish John and Ron would have been able to be here with us. They know more of the incident out of it. They're playing it. But when you're pushing it, Janice Daniels is part of John's group. I was there a week and a half ago signing and selling books to the group. And like Sadio was saying in the private chat, we are a republic. Yes, the word democracy does not appear in terrorist strikes coming soon to a city near you one time because we are a republic. And that's part of the education in my book. And it's needed, isn't it? Sadia.

SADIA CARONE:  Well, yes, let's define what a republic is. If we were a true democracy, every citizen would sit down for two or three hours on a Friday and vote on all of the stuff for that week. That's a democracy. And that is not what we do. We are a republic because we vote for people who will vote on our behalf. I have two senators and a congressperson and city council people. So that's the difference. Now, some people argue that we now have the technology to become a true democracy where the citizens themselves could vote and we could just abolish both houses, you know, the House of Representatives and the Senate and let the people actually vote. That's probably a few generations away. So a democracy is I vote on everything that affects me and affects my country. A republic is I'm going to vote for a senator. I have two senators, but they never run in the same year. A congressperson, that kind of thing. 

JOSEPH M LENARD: But it is also important to clarify - China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, they are republics too. But their constitution lay out the rights of the government power over the people. Whereas our constitutionally limited republic limits the powers of I'm supposed to. It used to with long lost it and got to get it back. It limits the federal powers. 10th Amendment guarantees it to the states not delegated. And again, these agencies invalid unconstitutional Department of Education completely unconstitutional. That is a state in a we the people issue and we've got to get the republic back. But yes, other nations are republic. It's important to make that distinction how our Western republics are set far and above apart like from the Magna Carta, then those tyrannical government given rights versus God given rights  under our republic and our bill of rights. 

SADIA CARONE: Joseph, I'm going to have to disagree with you on one thing. I think we need a federal or national board of education because there are school districts in Texas that teach that Jesus wrote dinosaurs. Seriously, I looked into this during the last election. So there is some merit in having a post office that can work in all 50 states. If you see the difference in education among you know, our worst states of Nevada is one of them and our highest performing states. You know, the facts are the facts. I don't believe Jesus wrote  dinosaurs. I think that scientifically. 

JOSEPH M LENARD: Yeah, well, you're talking about one weird one off anomaly. I'm talking about how the fact is education has declined ever since Jimmy Carter created the Department of coercion rather than education. They use the stick of the money and strings attached.

MICHAEL GARDNER (Host of Savaged Unfiltered):  Plan it simple guys. I agree with everything that everybody's saying here. I really do. Thanks very much for tuning in guys and we'll see you on the next one. 

[ChristiTutionalist Politics podcast begin Segment 3] 

We're going to wrap up this episode and first thank you again to Michael Gardner of Savaged Unfiltered, the creator of that show and it was the Patriot angle before that for allowing me to use snippets from the Saturday July 1st live stream we did on rumble regarding Norton v Shelby with Michael myself and Sadia. Thank you again for that and thank you Shakey also the producer of Savaged Unfiltered. 

This is just going to be a brief wrap up. I know some of you are going to get lost in this. We're going to go kind of deep in the weeds a little beyond what we normally would do on this podcast to try to stay at a higher 30,000 foot level looking at things. But there are a couple points out of the Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425 from 1886. A unanimous decision states unequivocally and undeniably that it's ruling holds that any government federal state county or local can never create a de facto office. We need to kind of touch on for those who want to indeed go into the weeds. If not you can skip the end of the show. You may want to skip ahead. 

One of the key points as pointed out in the nine most important points regarding Norton v Shelby from my friend John Taylor is one. An unconstitutional act is not a law pretty obvious right we would think if it is not listed in the Constitution as a duty or responsibility in the well defined duties of the government it is unconstitutional. Seems pretty basic in common sense there but so many people that have lost on 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 their local charter and can be removed from office having committed such act dim pretty straightforward three only the delegated authority of citizens as contained in the United States Constitution or state Constitution or local charter can thereby create an office du jour for their convenient office de facto there is no provision in the United States Constitution any state Constitution local charters than 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 I apologize obviously I was reading that I could have read that a little better we're going to get a lot more deeper into the weeds here in this part jumping ahead to the seventh point desure by right based on the Constitution or law passed in conjunction therewith illegal encroachment infringement on the duties of one's office public functionary anyone working for the government either elected or appointed delegation the people delegate and or give the people functionaries duties and responsibilities they must perform while occupying such office as part of their job description ratification formal or informal confirmation of an order law mandate etc jumping to the ninth of nine points none of the levels of government federal state county or like local can create a de facto office again I understand for many that may be a little too in the weeds and I apologize for that and I used the word usurper in there because that is what was in the document that is the term legally for the court battles the term that would be used for before the scotus if we can attach Norton v Shelby as a portion of a case going forward to the Supreme Court regarding alphabet agencies and the term we would generally more often use of overreach government overreach and that goes back to red pill strategy you don't want to necessarily talk over people's heads correct you use the word usurper frayed many their eyes will roll in their head and they'll just walk away so using the word overreach technically speaking I mean the word uspurpor is what applies. anyway I wanted to close off with that here at the end. 

Thank you for tuning in - take care and god bless 

[ChristiTutionalist Politics podcast begin Show outro] 

Thank you for having tuned-in for "ChristiTutionalist Politics" Show. If you haven't already please check out my primary internationally availble book "Terror Strikes: Coming Soon to a City Near You" (available anywhere books are sold, if you have locally run book store they can order it for you, or Autographed copies are available online direct from me via Also please tune-in to SAVAGED UNFILTERED podcast of which I am a co-host, and be sure to check out more about today's discussion at where my articles drop every Saturday. And let me remind: Over time the fancy high-production items will come, but for now, for starters, it is just you as a very appreciated listener by me, indeed just me on the podcast side/end, all substance no fluff, no fancy high-production intro or inserts - just straight to key discussion points. A show that looks at variety of topics, mostly Politics, through a Christian U.S. Constitutionalist lens. Take Care and God Bless!

Transcription Services above from:


S1E8 SHOW NOTES ( listen (Sat Aug 12 2023 and thereafter) at: )...
ChristiTutionalist Politics S1E8  "Norton v Shelby County TN Case"
Today's main topic is Saturday's "Norton v Shelby, and Government over-reach / usurpation" piece! 
An old Case many are trying to bring back to the fore and attach as part of supportive arguments of "Government overreach (usurpation)" challenge of Alphabet Agencies acting far outside their purview (designed, and legitimately "authorized" by Congress scope) case to the SCOTUS. An "in the weeds" discussion for advanced Patriots looking to Restore Our American Republic. Not a topic for "casual coversation" and to broach "strangers at the local Supermarket!" Often, those able to be awakened from their woke stupor, need to be taken in baby-steps and at their "digestable" own pace (often slowly) and therefore this topic is one that can/may overwhelm someone early on in their "new Political awakening journey!"

Episode related pieces...
- Savaged Unfiltered full Video LIVESTREAM: 
- EPA and other AlphabetAgenices overreach:   
- DOEd must go: Norton v Shelby: 
- Our Little Polish Genie:   

- Joseph M Lenard -  ( /\  
(S1E8 Audio: 37m 53s, Sat Aug 12th 2023)

some "Behind-the-Scenes" Video version of ChristiTutionalist Politics podcasts can be found via...   


9 Most Important Points regarding Norton v. Shelby County
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)- -a unanimous decision,  which is therefore                 Stare Decisis,  States unequivocally and undeniably that its ruling holds that any government, federal, state, county, or local, can never create a "de facto" office.
Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Evidence for Support!!

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 thereby creates 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.  "de jure"  by right  based on the Constitution or law passed in conjunction there with.
     "de facto" as a matter of fact, not by law, or Constitution.
     "usurpation" wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement on the duties of one's office.
     "public functionary" anyone working for the government either elected or appointed.
     "delegation"  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 
     "ratification" 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  
9.  None of the levels of government, federal, state, county, or local can create a "de facto"   

Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Evidence for Support!!


U.S. Supreme Court 
NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) 
118 U.S. 425 
Filed May 10, 1886 
[118 U.S. 425, 428]   Jos. H. Choate, for plaintiff in error. 
[118 U.S. 425, 432]   D. H. Poston, W. K. Poston, for plaintiff in error. 
[118 U.S. 425, 433]   Julius A. Taylor, R. D. Jordan, and W. B. Glisson, for defendant in error. [118 U.S. 425, 434]   
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court. 
This is an action upon 29 bonds, of $1,000 each, alleged to be the bonds of Shelby county, Tennessee, issued on the first of March, 1869, and payable on the first of January, 1873, with interest from January 1, 1869, at 6 per cent. per annum, payable annually on the surrender of matured interest coupons attached; and three coupons of $60 each. The following is a copy of one of the bonds, and of a coupon: 
'Issued under and by virtue of section 6 of an act of the legislature of the state of Tennessee passed February 25, 1867, amended on the twelfth day of February, 1869, and by authority conferred upon the county commissioners of Shelby county by section 25 of an act passed March 9, 1867. 
State of Tennessee. 
'A special tax is levied by authority of law upon all the taxable property in the county of Shelby to meet the principal and interest of these bonds, collectible in equal annual installments running through six years, as the bonds themselves mature. 
1,000 Dollars. 
'Be it known that the county of Shelby, state of Tennessee, is indebted to the Mississippi River Railroad Company, or bearer, in the sum of one thousand dollars, payable in the city of Memphis on the first day of January, 1873, with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum from January 1, 1869, payable annually in said city upon surrender of the matured interest coupons hereto attached. 
'This is one of three hundred $1,000 bonds, all of the same denomination and rate of interest, issued by Shelby county in payment of a subscription of three hundred thousand dollars to the Mississippi River Railroad Company, made by the county commissioners under the authority of the acts above recited, transferable by delivery, and redeemable in six years, at the rate of fifty thousand dollars a year, commencing January 1, 1870. [118 U.S. 425, 435]   'Dated at the city of Memphis, county of Shelby, state of Tennessee, the first day of March, 1869. 
[Seal County Court of Shelby County, Tennessee.] 
'President of the Board of County Commissioners of Shelby County. 
'Clerk of County Court of Shelby County,' 
'Shelby County. 
'Coupon No. ___ of Bond No. 264. 
'The trustee of Shelby county will pay to the bearer sixty dollars, in the city of Memphis, on the first day of January, 1875, being interest due on bond No. 264, for $1,000, of bonds issued to Mississippi River Railroad Company. 
[Seal County Court of Shelby County, Tennessee.] 
'Clerk of Shelby County Court.' 
The plaintiff contends (1) that the commissioners, by whose direction the bonds were issued, and whose president signed them, were lawful officers of Shelby county, and authorized, under the acts mentioned in the heading of the bonds, to represent and bind the county by the subscription to the railroad company, and that the bonds issued were therefore its legal obligations; (2) that if the commissioners were not officers de jure of the county, they were officers de facto, and, as such, their action in making the subscription and issuing the bonds is equally binding upon the county; and (3) that the action of the commissioners, whatever their want of authority, has been ratified by the county. 
The defendant contends (1) that the commissioners were not lawful officers of the county, and that there was no such office in Tennessee as that of county commissioner; (2) that there could not be any such de facto officers, as [118 U.S. 425, 436]   there was no such office known to the laws, and therefore that the subscription was made, and the bonds were issued, without authority, and are void; and (3) that the action of the commissioners was never ratified, and was incapable of ratification, by the county. 
Upon the first question presented, that which relates to the lawful existence and authority of the county commissioners, we are relieved from the necessity of passing. That has been authoritatively determined by the supreme court of Tennessee, and is not open for consideration by us. 
From an early period in the history of the state-indeed, from a period anterior to the adoption of her constitution of 1796-to the passage of the act of March 9, 1867, the administration of the government in local matters in each county was lodged in a county court, or 'quarterly court,' as it was sometimes called, composed of justices of the peace, elected in its different districts. The constitution of 1796 recognizes that court as an existing tribunal, and the constitution of 1834 prescribes the duties of the justices of the peace composing it. This county court alone had the power to make a county subscription to the Mississippi River Railroad Company, to issue bonds for the amount, and to levy taxes for its payment, unless the act of March 9, 1867, invested the board of commissioners with that authority. St. 1867, c. 48, 6. That act created the board, and provided that it should consist of five persons, residents of the county for not less than two years, each to serve for the period of five years, and until his successor should be elected and qualified. The twenty-fifth section vested in it all the powers and duties then possessed by the quarterly court of the county, and in addition thereto the authority 'to subscribe stock in railroads, which the county court of Shelby county has been authorized by general and special law to subscribe, and under the same conditions and restrictions, and to represent such stock in all elections for directors, and provide for payment of subscriptions as made.' 
The validity of this act superseding the county court was at once assailed as in violation of the constitution of the state. Within a month after its passage, WILLIAM WALKER and other [118 U.S. 425, 437]   justices of the peace of the county, in their official character, and as citizens and tax-payers, filed a bill in chancery in the name of the state, at their relation, against the commissioners appointed, alleging that they had usurped, and were unlawfully exercising, the powers and functions of the justices, and had taken into custody the records of the county under the act, which the relators insisted was in violation of the constitution, mentioning several sections with which it conflicted; and praying that the act be adjudged void, that the attempt of the commissioners to exercise the powers of the justices be declared a usurpation, and that the commissioners be perpetually enjoined from exercising them. The case having been decided adversely to the relators, an appeal was taken to the supreme court of the state, and pending the appeal the subscription to the stock of the Mississippi River Railroad Company was made by the commissioners, and the bonds were issued. Before the appeal was heard the supreme court of the state had under consideration a similar statute, passed on the twelfth of March, 1868, for Madison county, and extended to White county, which, in like manner, undertook to supersede the quarterly courts of those counties, and substitute in their place boards of commissioners with the same powers as those conferred upon the commissioners of Shelby county. The case in which such consideration was had was Pope v. Phifer, reported in 3 Heiskell's Reports [118 U.S. 425, 684]   of the Supreme Court of the state. Under this act, three commissioners were appointed by the governor, being the number prescribed to constitute the board of White county. The bill was filed to restrain them from organizing as a board, to have the act declared unconstitutional, and to perpetually enjoin them from acting under it. The court states in its opinion that the question as to the validity of the act was argued with great ability by counsel on both sides, and the opinion itself shows that the question was carefully considered. The chancellor, as in the case of State at the Relation of Walker and others against The Commissioners, dismissed the bill. The supreme court reversed the decree, and perpetually enjoined the defendants from acting as a board of commissioners. It held that the act creating the board, and conferring on the commissioners appointed by [118 U.S. 425, 438]   the governor the powers of justices of the peace of the county court, was unconstitutional and void; that the county court was one of the institutions of the state, recognized in the constitution; that the powers conferred by it upon the justices of the peace in their collective capacity were intended to be exercised by that court; and that the power to tax for purposes of the county could not, by any special or local law, be taken from the justices of the peace as a county court and conferred upon local tribunals of particular counties composed of commissioners appointed by the governor. 
This decision was made in February, 1871. In June following the case mentioned above of State at the Relation of Walker and others against The Commissioners of Shelby County was decided in conformity with it, the supreme court holding that at the time the bill was filed the justices were entitled to the relief prayed, and that the decree dismissing the bill was erroneous, and it so adjudged and decreed. But it said that as the act under which the bill alleged that the defendants had usurped office had since then been repealed, and that they had not afterwards assumed to exercise the powers and perform the duties named in the act, it was only necessary, in addition to what was decreed above, to dispose of the costs; and that disposition was made by taxing them against the defendants, and awarding execution therefor. 
In the same month the supreme court decided the case of Butterworth against Shelby County, which also involved a consideration of the validity of the act creating the board of commissioners of that county. 1 The action was upon county warrants issued by the board, and signed by Barbour Lewis as its president, as the bonds in this suit are signed. The court held that the act creating the board was unconstitutional, that the board was an illegal body, and that, as a necessary consequence, the warrants of the county were invalid. Judgment was accordingly rendered for the defendant. Chief Justice NICHOLSON, in delivering the opinion of the court, referred to [118 U.S. 425, 439]   the two decisions mentioned, and said that they had 'determined that the legislature exceeded its constitutional powers in assuming to abolish the county court, and substitute in its place a board of county commissioners with the powers before belonging to the county court. The act of March 9, 1867, was therefore a nullity, and the board of commissioners appointed and organized thereunder was an unauthorized and illegal body. The act was inoperative as to the existing organization, powers, and duties of the county court. Neither the board of commissioners nor Barbour Lewis, its president, had any more powers under said act than if no act had been passed.' 
Counsel for the plaintiff have endeavored to show that the adjudication in these cases has been questioned by later decisions, and therefore should have no controlling force in this litigation. A careful examination of those decisions fails to support this position. The opinion that the act was invalid because it was special legislation, applicable only to certain counties, would seem, indeed, to be thus modified. But the adjudication that the constitution did not permit the appointment of commissioners to take the place of the justices of the peace for the county, and perform the duties of the county court, stands unimpaired, and as such is binding upon us. Two of the cases, as we have seen, were brought against the commissioners, in one case, of Shelby county, and in the other, of White county, to test the validity of the acts under which they were appointed, or about to be appointed, and their right to assume and exercise the functions and powers of the justices of the peace, and hold the county court in their place. From the nature of the questions presented we cannot review or ignore this determination. Upon the construction of the constitution and laws of a state, this court, as a general rule, follows the decisions of her highest court, unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the federal constitution, or of a federal statute, or a rule of commercial or general law. In these cases no principle of the federal constitution, or of any federal law, is invaded, and no rule of general or commercial law is disregarded. The determination made relates to the existence [118 U.S. 425, 440]   of an inferior tribunal of the state, and that depending upon the constitutional power of the legislature of the state to create it and supersede a pre-existing institution. Upon a subject of this nature the federal courts will recognize as authoritative the decision of the state court. As said by Mr. Justice BRADLEY, speaking for the court in Claiborne Co. v. Brooks: 'It is undoubtedly a question of local policy with each state, what shall be the extent and character of the powers which its various political and municipal organizations shall possess; and the settled decisions of its highest courts on the subject will be regarded as authoritative by the courts of the United States; for it is a question that relates to the internal constitution of the body politic of the state.' 111 U.S. 400 , 410; S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 489. It would lead to great confusion and disorder if a state tribunal, adjudged by the state supreme court to be an unauthorized and illegal body, should be held by the federal courts, disregarding the decision of the state court, to be an authorized and legal body, and thus make the claims and rights of suitors depend, in many instances, not upon settled law, but upon the contingency of litigation respecting them being before a state or a federal court. Conflicts of this kind should be avoided, if possible, by leaving the courts of one sovereignty within their legitimate sphere to be independent of those of another, each respecting the adjudications of the other on subjects properly within its jurisdiction. 
On many subjects the decisions of the courts of a state are merely advisory, to be followed or disregarded, according as they contain true or erroneous expositions of the law, as those of a foreign tribunal are treated. But on many subjects, they must necessarily be conclusive,-such as relate to the existence of her subordinate tribunals, the eligibility and election or appointment of their officers, and the passage of her laws. No federal court should refuse to accept such decisions as expressing on these subjects the law of the state. If, for instance, the supreme court of a state should hold that an act appearing on her statute book was never passed, and never became a law, the federal courts could not disregard the decision, and declare that it was a law, and enforce it as such. South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U.S. 260 ; Post v. Supervisors, 105 U.S. 667 . [118 U.S. 425, 441]   The decision of the supreme court of Tennessee as to the constitutional existence of the board of commissioners of Shelby county is one of this class. That court has repeatedly adjudged, after careful and full consideration, that no such board ever had a lawful existence; that it was an unauthorized and illegal body; that its members were usurpers of the functions and powers of the justices of the peace of the county; and that their action in holding the county court was utterly void. This court should neither gainsay nor deny the authoritative character of that determination. It follows that in the disposition of the case before us we must hold that there was no lawful authority in the board to make the subscription to the Mississippi River Railroad Company, and to issue the bonds of which those in suit are a part. 
But it is contended that if the act creating the board was void, and the commissioners were not officers de jure, they were nevertheless officers de facto, and that the acts of the board as a de facto court are binding upon the county. This contention is met by the fact that there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill. As the act attempting to create the office of commissioner never became a law, the office never came into existence. Some persons pretended that they held the office, but the law never recognized their pretensions, nor did the supreme court of the state. Whenever such pretensions were considered in that court, they were declared to be without any legal foundation, and the commissioners were held to be usurpers. The doctrine which gives validity to acts of officers de facto, whatever defects there may be in the legality of their appointment of election, is founded upon considerations of policy and necessity, for the protection of the public and individuals whose interests may be affected thereby. Offices are created for the benefit of the public, and private parties are not permitted to inquire into the title of persons clothed with the evidence of such offices, and in apparent possession of their powers and functions. For the good order and peace of society their authority is to be respected and obeyed until, in some regular mode prescribed by law, their title is investigated and determined. [118 U.S. 425, 442]   It is manifest that endless confusion would result if in every proceeding before such officers their title could be called in question. But the idea of an officer implies the existence of an office which he holds. It would be a misapplication of terms to call one an 'officer' who holds no office, and a public office can exist only by force of law. This seems to us so obvious that we should hardly feel called upon to consider any adverse opinion on the subject but for the earnest contention of plaintiff's counsel that such existence is not essential, and that it is sufficient if the office be provided for by any legislative enactment, however invalid. Their position is that a legislative act, though unconstitutional, may in terms create an office, and nothing further than its apparent existence is necessary to give validity to the acts of its assumed incumbent. That position, although not stated in this broad form, amounts to nothing else. It is difficult to meet it by any argument beyond this statement: 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. 
In Hildreth v. McIntire, 1 J. J. Marsh. 206, we have a decision from the court of appeals of Kentucky which well illustrates this doctrine. The legislature of that state attempted to abolish the court of appeals established by her constitution, and create in its stead a new court. Members of the new court were appointed, and undertook to exercise judicial functions. They dismissed an appeal because the record was not filed with the person acting as their clerk. A certificate of the dismissal signed by him was received by the lower court, and entered of record, and execution to carry into effect the original decree was ordered to issue. To reverse this order an appeal was taken to the constitutional court of appeals. The question was whether the court below erred in obeying the mandate of the members of the new court, and its solution depended upon another, whether they were judges of the court of appeals, and the person acting as their clerk was its clerk. The court said: 'Although they assumed the functions of judges and clerk, and attempted to act as such [118 U.S. 425, 443]   their acts in that character are totally null and void, unless they had been regularly appointed under and according to the constitution. A de facto court of appeals cannot exist under a written constitution which ordains one supreme court, and defines the qualification and duties of its judges, and prescribes the mode of appointing them. There cannot be more than one court of appeals in Kentucky as long as the constitution shall exist, and that must necessarily be a court de jure. When the government is entirely revolutionized, and all its departments usurped by force or the voice of a majority, then prudence recommends and necessity enforces obedience to the authority of those who may act as the public functionaries, and in such a case the acts of a de facto executive, a de facto judiciary, and a de facto legislature must be recognized as valid. But this is required by political necessity. There is no government in action except the government de facto, because all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act, and do act, in their stead. But when the constitution or form of government remains unaltered and supreme, there can be no de facto department or de facto office. The acts of the incumbents of such departments or office cannot be enforced conformably to the constitution, and can be regarded as valid only when the government is overturned. When there is a constitutional executive and legislature, there cannot be any other than a constitutional judiciary. Without a total revolution, there can be no such political solecism in Kentucky as a de facto court of appeals. There can be no such court while the constitution has life and power. There has been none such. There might be under our constitution, as there have been, de facto officers; but there never was, and never can be, under the present constitution, a de facto office.' And the court held that the gentlemen who acted as judges of the legislative tribunal were not incumbents of de jure or de facto offices, nor were they de facto officers of de jure offices, and the order below was reversed. 
In some respects the case at bar resembles this one from Ken- [118 U.S. 425, 444]   tucky. Under the constitution of Tennessee there was but one county court. That was composed of the justices of the county elected in their respective districts. The commissioners appointed under the act of March 9, 1867, by the governor were not such justices, and could not hold such court, any more than the legislative tribunal of Kentucky could hold the court of appeals of that state. In Shelby Co. v. Butterworth, from the opinion in which we have already quoted, Chief Justice NICHOLSON, speaking of the claim that Barbour Lewis, the president of the board of county commissioners, was a de facto officer, after referring to the decisions of the supreme court of the state holding that the board of commissioners was an illegal and unconstitutional body, said: 'This left the organization of the county court in its former integrity, with its officers entitled to their offices, and creating no vacancy to be filled by the illegal action under the act of 1867. It follows that Barbour Lewis could not be a de facto officer, as there was no legal board of which he could be president, and as there was no vacancy in the legal organization. The warrants issued by him show the character in which he was acting, and repel the presumption that he was a de facto officer. He could be, under the circumstances, as we can judicially know from the law and the pleadings in the case, nothing but a usurper. There must be a legal office in existence, which is being improperly held, to give to the acts of such incumbent the validity of an officer de facto.' 
Numerous cases are cited in which expressions are used which, read apart from the facts of the cases, seemingly give support to the position of counsel. But, when read in connection with the facts, they will be seen to apply only to the invalidity, irregularity, or unconstitutionality of the mode by which the party was appointed or elected to a legally existing office. None of them sanctions the doctrine that there can be a de facto office under a constitutional government, and that the acts of the incumbents are entitled to consideration as valid acts of a de facto officer. Where an office exists under the law, it matters not how the appointment of the incumbent is made, so far as the validity of his acts are concerned. It is [118 U.S. 425, 445]   enough that he is clothed with the insignia of the office, and exercises its powers and functions. As said by Mr. Justice MANNING, of the supreme court of Michigan, in Carleton v. People, 10 Mich. 259: 'Where there is no office there can be no officer de facto, for the reason that there can be none de jure. The county office existed by virtue of the constitution the moment the new county was organized. No act of legislation was necessary for that purpose. And all that is required when there is an office to make an officer de facto, is that the individual claiming the office is in possession of it, performing its duties, and claiming to be such officer under color of an election or appointment, as the case may be. It is not necessary that his election or appointment be valid, for that would make him an officer de jure. The official acts of such persons are recognized as valid on grounds of public policy, and for the protection of those having official business to transact.' 
The case of State v. Carroll, 38 Conn. 449, decided by the supreme court of Connecticut, upon which special reliance is placed by counsel, and which is mentioned with strong commendation as a land-mark of the law, in no way militates against the doctrine we have declared, but is in harmony with it. That case was this: The constitution of Connecticut provided that all judges should be elected by its general assembly. An act of the legislature authorized the clerk of a city court, in case of the sickness or absence of its judge, to appoint a justice of the peace to hold the court during his temporary sickness or absence. A justice of the peace having thus been called in, and having acted, a question arose whether the judgments rendered by him were valid. The court held that whether the law was constitutional or not, he was an officer de facto, and, as such, his acts were valid. The opinion of Chief Justice BUTLER is an elaborate and admirable statement of the law, with a review of the English and American cases, on the validity of the acts of de facto officers, however illegal the mode of their appointment. It criticizes the language of some cases, that the officer must act under color of authority conferred by a person having power, or prima facie power, to appoint or elect in the particular case; and it thus defines an officer de facto: [118 U.S. 425, 446]   'An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid, so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office are exercised-First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be; second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent, requirement, or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like; third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defacto being unknown to the public; fourth, under color of an election or an appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such.' 
Of the great number of cases cited by the chief justice, none recognizes such a thing as a de facto office, or speaks of a person as a de facto officer, except when he is the incumbent of a de jure office. The fourth head refers, not to the unconstitutionality of the act creating the office, but to the unconstitutionality of the act by which the officer is appointed to an office legally existing. That such was the meaning of the chief justice is apparent from the cases cited by him in support of the last position, to some of which reference will be made. One of them ( Taylor v. Skrine, 3 Brev. 516) arose in South Carolina in 1815. By an act of that state of 1799 the governor was authorized to appoint and commission some fit and proper person to sit as judge in case any of the judges on the circuit should happen to be sick, or become unable to hold the court in his circuit. A presiding judge of the court was thus appointed by the governor. Subsequently the act was declared to [118 U.S. 425, 447]   be unconstitutional, and the question arose whether the acts of the judge were necessarily void. It was held that he was a judge de facto, and acting under color of legal authority, and that as such his acts were valid. Here the judge was appointed to fill an existing office, the duties of which the legal incumbent was temporarily incapable of discharging. Another case is Cocke v. Halsey, 16 Pet. 71. It there appeared that, by the constitution of Mississippi, the judges and clerks of probate were elected by the people. The legislature provided by law that, in case of the disability of the clerk, the court might appoint one. An elected clerk having left the state for an indefinite period, the judge appointed another to serve during his absence. The law authorizing the appointment was declared unconstitutional, but the acts of the clerk were deemed valid as those of an officer de facto. Here the office was an existing one, created by law. 
To Carleton v. People, 10 Mich. 250, we have already referred. By the constitution of Michigan the laws of the legislature took effect 90 days after their passage. The legislature, on the fourth of February, passed an act creating a new county, and authorized the election of county officers in April following. The officers were elected within the 90 days, that is, before the act took effect, and they subsequently acted as such officers. The validity of their acts was questioned on the ground that there was at the time no law that authorized the election, but the offices were existing by the constitution, and as they subsequently entered upon the duties of those offices, it was held that they were officers de facto. 
In Clark v. Com., from the supreme court of Pennsylvania, (29 Pa. St. 129,) the question related only to the title of the officer. The constitution of that state provided for a division of the state into judicial districts, and for the election of the presiding judge of the county court for each district by the people thereof. The legislature passed a law transferring a county from one judicial district to another during the term for which the judge of the district had been elected, and while presiding judge of the district to which the county was thus transferred, he held court, at which a prisoner was con- [118 U.S. 425, 448]   victed of murder. It was contended that the act of the legislature was equivalent to an appointment of a judge for that county, and therefore unconstitutional. The supreme court held that, admitting the law to be unconstitutional, the judge was an officer de facto, and that the prisoner could not be heard to deny it. Here, also, the office was one created by law, and the only question was as to the constitutionality of the law authorizing the judge to exercise it. 
It is evident, from a consideration of these cases, that the learned chief justice, in State v. Carroll, had reference, in his fourth subdivision, as we have said, to the unconstitutionality of acts appointing the officer, and not of acts creating the office. Other cases cited by counsel will show a similar view. 
In Brown v. O'Connell, 36 Conn. 432, the constitution of the state provided that the judges of the courts should be appointed by the general assembly. An act of the legislature established a police court in the city of Hartford, and provided for the appointment of judges of the court by the common council. It was held that the judge could be appointed only by the general assembly, and to that extent the act was unconstitutional. There was no question as to the validity of the act, so far as it established a police court, and the appointee of the common council was held to be a judge de facto. 
The case of Blackburn v. State, 3 Head, 689, only goes to show that the illegality of an appointment to a judicial office does not affect the validity of the acts of the judge. The constitution of Tennessee requires a judge to be 30 years of age. A judge under that age having been appointed, it was held that he could be removed by a proper proceeding, but until that was done his acts were binding. 
In Fowler v. Bebee, 9 Mass. 231, the legislature passed an act erecting the county of Hampden, and provided that the law should take effect from the first of August next ensuing. Before that date the governor, with the advice and consent of the then council, commissioned a person as sheriff of the county. There was no such office at the time his commission was issued, but when the law went into effect he acted under his commission. It was only the case of a premature appoint- [118 U.S. 425, 449]   ment, and it was held that he was an officer de facto, and that the legality of his commission could not be collaterally questioned. 
None of the cases cited militates against the doctrine that, for the existence of a de facto officer, there must be an office de jure, although there may be loose expressions in some of the opinions, not called for by the facts, seemingly against this view. Where no office legally exists, the pretended officer is merely a usurper, to whose acts no validity can be attached; and such, in our judgment, was the position of the commissioners of Shelby county, who undertook to act as the county court, which could be constitutionally held only by justices of the peace. Their right to discharge the duties of justices of the peace was never recognized by the justices, but from the outset was resisted by legal proceedings, which terminated in an adjudication that they were usurpers, clothed with no authority or official function. 
It remains to consider whether the action of the commissioners in subscribing for stock of the Mississippi River Railroad Company, and issuing the bonds, of which those in suit are a part, being originally in valid, was afterwards ratified by the county. The county court, consisting of the justices of the peace, elected in their respective districts, alone had power to make a subscription and issue bonds. The sixth section of the act of February 25, 1867, to which the bonds on their face refer, provides 'that the county court of any county through which the line of the Mississippi River Railroad is proposed to run, a majority of the justices in commission at the time concurring, may make a corporate or county subscription to the capital stock of said railroad company, of an amount not exceeding two-thirds the estimated cost of grading the road-bed through the county, and preparing the same for the iron rails; the said cost to be verified by the sworn statement of the president or chief engineer of said company. And after such subscription shall have been entered upon the books of the railroad company, either by the chairman of the county court, or by any other member of the court appointed therefor, the court shall proceed, without further reference or delay, to levy an [118 U.S. 425, 450]   assessment on all the taxable property within the county sufficient to pay said subscription; and the same shall be payable in three equal annual installments, commencing with the fiscal year in which said subscription shall be made. And it shall be lawful for county courts making subscriptions as herein provided to issue short bonds to the railroad company, in anticipation of the collection of the annual levies, if thereby construction of the work may be facilitated.' St. 1867, c. 48, 6. On the fifth of the following November the legislature passed an act declaring 'that the subscription authorized in said sixth section to be made to the capital stock of the Mississippi River Railroad Company, by the counties along the line of said railroad, may be made at any monthly term of the county courts of said counties, or at any special term of said courts: provided, that a majority of all the justices in commission in the counties respectively shall be present when any such subscription is made; and provided, further, that a majority of those present shall concur therein.' St. 1867, c. 6, 1. 
Neither of these acts, as counsel observe, recognizes or in any way refers to the county commissioners, though the last act was passed eight months after the act creating the board of commissioners for Shelby county. Both provide that the subscription may be made by the county court, but upon the condition that a majority of all the justices in commission shall be present, and a majority of those present shall concur therein. 
The county court met on the fifteenth of November, 1869, for the first time after the passage of the act of March 9, 1867, and assumed its legitimate functions as the governing agency of the county. On the eleventh of April, 1870, it again met, and established the rate of taxation for the Mississippi River Railroad bonds at 20 cents on each $100 worth of taxable property. At its meeting on the sixteenth of that month it ordered that the tax for those bonds should be 10 cents on each $100 worth of property. At the meeting on the 11th there were 22 justices of the peace present, of whom 18 voted for the tax levy, and on the 16th only [118 U.S. 425, 451]   12 justices were present. There were in the county at that time 45 justices in commission. There were no other exeetings of the county court until after May 5, 1870, on which day the new constitution of Tennessee went into effect, which declares that 'the credit of no county, city, or town shall be given or loaned to or in aid of any person, company, association, or corporation, except upon an election to be first held by the qualified voters of such county, city, or town, and the assent of three-fourths of the votes cast at said election; nor shall any county, city, or town become a stockholder with others in any company, association, or corporation, except upon a like election and the assent of a like majority.' 
By this provision of the constitution the county court, as thus seen, was shorn of any power to order a subscription to stock of any railroad company without the previous assent of three-fourths of the voters of the county cast at an election held by its qualified voters, and, of course, it could not afterwards, without such assent, give validity to a subscription previously made by the commissioners. It could not ratify the acts of an unauthorized body. To ratify is to give validity to the act of another, and implies that the person or body ratifying has at the time power to do the act ratified. As we said in Marsh v. Fulton Co., where it was contended, as in this case, that certain bonds of that county, issued without authority, were ratified by various acts of its supervisors, 'a ratification is, in its effect upon the act of an agent, equivalent to the possession by him of a previous authority. It operates upon the act ratified in the same manner as though the authority of the agent to do the act existed originally. It follows that a ratification can only be made when the party ratifying possesses the power to perform the act ratified. The supervisors possessed no authority to make the subscription or issue the bonds in the first instance without the previous sanction of the qualified voters of the county. The supervisors in that particular were the mere agents of the county. They could not, therefore, ratify a subscription without a vote of the county, because they could not make a subscription in the first instance without such authorization. It would be absurd to say that [118 U.S. 425, 452]   they could without such vote, by simple expressions of approval, or in some other indirect way, give validity to acts, when they were directly, in terms, prohibited by statute from doing those acts until after such vote was had. That would be equivalent to saying that an agent, not having the power to do a particular act for his principal, could give validity to such act by its indirect recognition.' 10 Wall. 676, 684. See, also, County of Davies v. Dickinson, 117 U. S. --; S. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897; McCracken v. City of San Francisco, 16 Cal. 591, 623. 
No election was held by the voters of Shelby county with reference to the subscription for stock of the Mississippi River Railroad Company after the new constitution went into effect. No subsequent proceedings, resolutions, or expressions of approval of the county court with reference to the subscription made by the county commissioners, or to the bonds issued by them, could supersede the necessity of such an election. Without this sanction the county court could, in no manner, ratify the unauthorized act, nor could it accomplish that result by acts which would stop it from asserting that no such election was had. The requirement of the law could not, in this indirect way, be evaded. 
The case of Aspinwall v. Commissioners of Davis Co., 22 How. 365, is directly in point on this subject. There the charter of the Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Company, created by the legislature of Indiana in 1848, as amended in 1849, authorized the commissioners of a county through which the road passed to subscribe for stock and issue bonds, provided a majority of the qualified voters of the county voted on the first of March, 1849, that this should be done. The election was held on that day, and a majority of the voters voted that a subscription should be made. In September, 1852, the board of commissioners, pursuant to the acts and election, subscribed for 600 shares of the stock of the railroad company, amounting to $30,000, and in payment of it issued 30 bonds of $1,000 each, signed and sealed by the president of the board, and attested by the auditor of the county, and delivered the same to the company. These bonds drew interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, for which coupons were attached. [118 U.S. 425, 453]   The plaintiffs became the holders of 60 of these coupons, and upon them the suit was brought against the commissioners of the county. After the subscription was voted, but before it was made or the bonds issued, the new constitution of Indiana went into effect, which contained the following provision: 'No county shall subscribe for stock in any incorporated company unless the same be paid for at the time of such subscription, nor shall any county loan its credit to any incorporated company, nor borrow money for the purpose of taking stock in any such company.' Article 10, 6. This provision was set up against the validity of the bonds and coupons; and the question arose whether, under the charter of the company and its amendment, the right to the county subscription became so vested in the company as to exclude the operation of the new constitution. The court held that the provisions of the charter authorizing the commissioners to subscribe conferred a power upon a public corporation which could be modified, changed, enlarged, or restrained by the legislature; that by voting for the subscription no contract was created which prevented the application of the new constitution; that the mere vote to subscribe did not of itself form a contract with the company within the protection of the federal constitution; that until the subscription was actually made no contract was executed; and that the bonds, being issued in violation of the new constitution of the state, were void. That constitution withdrew from the county commissioners all authority to make a subscription for the stock of an incorporated company, except in the manner and under the circumstances prescribed by that instrument, even though a vote for such subscription had been previously had, and a majority of the voters had voted for it. The doctrine of this case was reaffirmed in Wadsworth v. Supervisors, 102 U.S. 534 . 
It follows that no ratification of the subscription to the Mississippi River Railroad Company, or of the bonds issued for its payment, could be made by the county court, subsequently to the new constitution of Tennessee, without the previous assent of three-fourths of the voters of the county, which has never been given. [118 U.S. 425, 454]   The question recurs whether any ratification can be inferred from the action of the county court on the eleventh and sixteenth of April, 1870, which was had before that constitution took effect. At the meeting of the court on those days a rate of tax was established to be levied for the payment of the bonds, but it appears from its records that on both days less than a majority of the justices of the county were present, and the county court, under those circumstances, could not even directly have authorized the subscription. The levy of a tax for the payment of the bonds, when a less number of justices were present than would have been necessary to order a subscription, could not operate as a ratification of a void subscription. 
It is unnecessary to pursue this subject further. We are satisfied that none of the positions taken by the plaintiff can be sustained. The original invalidity of the acts of the commissioners has never been subsequently cured. It may be, as alleged, that the stock of the railroad company for which they subscribed is still held by the county. If so, the county may, by proper proceedings, be required to surrender it to the company, or to pay its value; for, independently of all restrictions upon municipal corporations, there is a rule of justice that must control them as it controls individuals. If they obtain the property of others without right, they must return it to the true owners, or pay for its value. But questions of that nature do not arise in this case. Here it is simply a question as to the validity of the bonds in suit, and as that cannot be sustained, the judgment below must be affirmed; and it is so ordered. 
[ Footnote 1 ] This case does not appear to be reported. A copy of the opinion was furnished the court by counsel. 


The "#ChristiTutionalist Politics" podcast is now on the air!!! Finally get your News from a purely Christian U. S. Constitutional perspective.... Plus recent SCOTUS Rulings discussion...

Born and raised a Catholic; but as Friend Pastor Richard Deitering of “Moment Of Clarity” (WAAM Radio Show Host) says: not the “average” Catholic as having studied many of the other Christian sects (as well as many other of the World’s Faiths/Religions), and having coined the term “nincomPOPE” for Francis whom seems far more interested in spreading Communism than Catholicism most of the time; coined the new term: ChristiTutionalist to better describe Political philosophy (with many trying to make “Conservative” a slur) and fitting under the 1st Amendment protection of Freedom of Religion (not Freedom from Religion) and Freedom of Association. As mentioned in “Will REAL Christians save America” piece, see too the great book from Neil Mammen “Jesus IS was involved in Politics, why aren’t you? Why isn’t your Church?” as well as other important Christian related books as discussed in “Will REAL Christians save America” piece. Also spreading the word, minted by Joseph decades ago, about modern FASCICRATS (yes, DNC, has 28 NSDAP planks in their Platform); as bad as GIJIA (another Joseph M Lenard coined term) destroying America from within (as outlined in Joseph’s “Terror Strikes: Coming Soon to a City Near You“). And therefore the need for the “ChristiTutionalists Politics” podcast to discuss all the above and more!!! See too what is a “Conservatarian?“

New episode of #ChristiTutionalist Politics podcast drops Sat. July 1st 2023, catch up the previous one before then…
[also shared as focus on SCOTUS2023 via shortcut:]

ChristiTutionalist Politics podcast -
“ChristiTutionalist Politics” podcast. Weekly (weekends) News/Opinion-cast from Christian U.S. Constitutional perspective w/ Author/Activist Joseph M. Lenard.
Joseph M Lenard –

“ChristiTutionalist Politics” S1E1 “Welcome to the new Show – Introductions”
This S1E1 will be an “introductory” episode and a little about me and this likely to be “Seinfeld-esque” (one Sat. about something serious, the next Sat. (yes, weekly to start slowly, dropping Saturdays (originally as announced Monthly)) maybe about nothing important at all. I’m open to hearing from you (via CONTACT tab) w/ comments/suggestions. Many times I’ll be going over my TheLibertyBeacon or BeforeItsNews artciles topics, “Savaged Unfiltered” podcast I co-host (“the BIG SHOW” to this little “humble-beginnings” show/start), my books, or whatever! Let us grow together.
Joseph M Lenard –

(S1E2 Audio: 29m 55s, Sat Jul 1st 2023) S1E2 SHOW NOTES:
“ChristiTutionalist Politics” S1E2 “‘Already a correction?’ and “Ranked Choice Voting!”
Thank You for considering listening to this Show, as ListenNotes Reports you have about 168.9 Million+ PreRecorded Podcast Show episodes (and growing daily) to choose from. In S1-E1 “Introductions” Show was mentioned “ChristiTutionalist Politics” would air monthly – and now, only few days later, time to announce pivot/change already (a correction, and it is a good/positive thing). “ChristiTutionalist Politics” will now air weekly dropping a new Show each weekend which will coincide with new article dropping each Saturday at TheLibertyBeacon and there-by primary topic of week with “other surprises” added in! This week’s TLB piece “Ranked Choice: Great, except way AK RINOs did it.”
(also discussed on: WAAM ART Sat 6/24:
Joseph M Lenard –  

Future TLB articles and ChristiTutionalist  Politics podcast Show topics will be…
4th Of July (parts 1 and 2, remembering our FREEDOMS, RIGHTS, and those who PROTECT THEM, beyond one Holiday (and similar to existing/past “Honoring the Fallen beyond Memorial Day” TLB piece))
The Thirteenth Floor (update to older B4IN version)
#BIDENonmics hilarity/farce DETROYING AMERICA (based upon recent Social-Media posts across my 15 Social-Media platforms)

Will REAL #CHRISTIANS Save North #America? It is why The Left wants REAL #Christianity destroyed (preserving the Left’s Biden, Pelosi, et al twisted/warped Bible version, and yes too Save Canada from Leftists like Premier BlackFace Justin and his ilk) – as REAL Christianity helped found America, help destroy the #Soviets, etc…

Left’s motto: Separation FROM Church TO State!
(aka: –
Alumi-Baby joins the PRO-LIFE Cause!!
Really the 2 “Twisting/Warping language items below, part 2 & 3 to GREATER GOOD above)

The ChristiTutionalist view on the recent SCOTUS Rulings…

The WEBSITE DESIGN CASE would NOT have even been necessary or an issue for the last several years if the MORONS (mainly, Chief Justice Roberts) would STOP the limited rulings bullshit and make the broader Constitutional Rulings in the first place (like here, the previous CAKE BAKING case, and the overall issue of NO COMPELLED/COHERCED SPEECH should have been made clear THEN or ANY of the other countless SPEECH CASES they’ve heard)!!!

But, of course, you will hear LIES from the Left, as they cannot have any discussion based upon merits, and in order to keep their EMOTIONALLY HYSTERICAL (rather than logic/reason) base of DUMBocrat Voters ENRAGED with tripe and bullshit (cannot make a “SOUND REASONED CASE” why THEIR DEMOKKKRAT RACISM and IDENTITY POLITICS should not be allowed to continue) they try to pretend this is about AN ATTACK ON THE LGBTQ+ Crowd. This ZERO to do with the #GAYtivists engaged in #GAYtivism RAINBOW ALPHABET MAFIA (related: ) as the LOGIC/REASON in the case applies across board — YOU CANNOT still discriminate based upon Race and other protected Class under the 14th Amendment. Would they defend NEO-NAZI to DEMAND a Baker make a customized HITLER’S BIRTHDAY Cake?!?!? Would they DEMAND that a BLACK BAKER have to make a custom Cake for a demoKKKrats KKK Clan Rally?!?!? Their folly and empty argument is easily exposed. This has ZERO to do with any GROUP but about 1st Amendment Rights and YOU CANNOT COMPELE SPEECH!!!

Same with the AFFIRMATIVE ACTION case from yesterday, that the SCOTUS FAILED to make clear ANY DETERMINATION OR CONSIDERATION ON RACE IS VIOLATION OF 14A in the UofM AA policy having been challenged years ago — and MORON ROBERTS in his comments did it again, instead of saying WE SHOULD HAVE WENT FURTHER IN THAT PREVIOUS CASE AND THIS ONE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY the moron made mumblings and hints they could REWORK the programs AND STILL DISCRIMINATE… So, of course, and I was just on w/ Rick Walker and MAVERICK NEWS last night discussing, the Left will get the University Deans, some Prof’s, the Lawyers, Leftwing pandering Politicians; as they all PROFIT off the DIVISION scam/con/game; and decide WHAT DO WE CALL THE NEW SCAM/CON that will be exactly the same as the OLD SCAM/CON but with a different name — and will be put in place and last for decades as NEW COURT CHALLENGES made all the way to SCOTUS (AGAIN) cuz moron Roberts “moderates” the Court and wants “limited scope” Rulings THAT DO NOT FULLY/REALLY/ACTUALLY RESOLVE the Constitutional aspect forever AS THEY SHOULD AND IS THEIR FU****G JOB to do so.

MLK is finally able to look down from Heaven and Smile as his Dream of indeed ABSOLUTE EQUAILITY (not bullshit Marxist “Special Privileges” for some over others, and END to RACIST Laws/policy) and CONTENT OF CHARACTER indeed be the Mark of all Men/Women (both, and the only two, Sexes/Genders) rather than the prism of their Skin-Tone finally achieved. Meanwhile the newest Justice, idiot appointed by #JoeBiDUMB (Liberal/FASCICRATS Activist, NOT #RuleOfLaw and Constitution Judge) Jackass… er… I mean… “Jackson” in her rants and raves DEMAND she get SPECIAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES for her Skin-Tone and others (NOT everyone’s own Merits). The STUPIDITY of the Left Marxist Pathetical Corruptness WOKEist manure to DIVIDE and DESTROY USA from within.

Yep, we in Michigan have been calling it DIE (NOT “DEI” – cuz it is about KILLING our Culture)… Often repeated during our (listen live on w/e’s 9a, 1p, 2p, shows)…

DIVERSITY (we already have that in THE GREAT AMERICAN MELTING POT (we BLEND, it’s NOT “Cultural Appropriation” you morons, USA is the most Diverse Nation on the Planet (E Pluribus Unum – from many one – we blend many Cultures into our own unique INCLUSIVE Culture)), INCLUSION (ditto), EQUITY (NO THANKS, keep your bullshit Commie Equity term, we have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY and EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW here in USA already)!

So, as I just put forth, THEY DON’T BELIEVE THE “DI” PART in their bullshit talking-points, cuz they are trying to DESTROY THE “DI” with Black only Dorms, Black only (SEGREGATION) Ceremonies, etc…

And like I often say during interviews discussing my #book ( | | ) if ORWELL were alive today about ANIMAL FARM (which I mention in my book, to bolster the additional points to Orwell) writing a sequel – the line would be: “Some Animals get more EQUITY (Special Rights, Special Privileges, rather than EQUAL) Rights than other Animals!”

vs the Left FASCI-FEDERALISTS of today.

PLUS, of course, thinking people know, regarding COLLEGE ADMISSION DISPARITIES; which has to do with URBAN vs RURAL Educated people (regardless of Black, White, Pink, Purple, or Transparent). Want to FIX THAT? Simple FIX THE DAMN FAILING K-12 URBAN EDUCATION INDOCTRINATION FACTORIES but the Left does NOT want Educated people, they want dumbed down more easily manipulated people, and also THEY DO NOT WANT TO FIX K-12. The Left OPPOSES all efforts to FIX K-12. They only care about funneling more money to Teacher’s Unions the PROTECT FAILURES IN THE CLASSROOM and misEducation of Children – they REFUSE “School Choice” even though majority of DUMBocrats Voters support them to be able to use THEIR OWN MONEY (otherwise confiscated from them via Property Taxes) to send (via Vouchers, NOT Tax Credits, as “Credits” means you have to have it and spend it in order to recover it via Tax Return) Children to Schools of our own choosing — TO FORCE PUBLIC FAILURES TO COMPETE for the dollars. That is the ONLY FIX as all they know or care about IS THAT THEY WOULD LOSE MONEY!!

This is BASIC COMMON SENSE, want those unable to “qualify” due to lack of Education (and if/when you give those without sufficient and proper Education to be ready and capable to succeed in College, a pass into College they cannot handle, THEY DROP OUT (that is why there is a high drop-out rate)). Want to fix both the don’t qualify and high-dropout rate??? FIX K-12. And most, even DUMBocrat Voters, AGREE as Poll after Poll after Poll shows (and, yes, in these cases the Polling is correct, it is usually/mainly POTUS and CONGRESSIONAL polling they FUDGE to shape Candidate opinion rather than Report on Electorate thoughts).




ON PEDOPHILES, DEPRAVITY, LIBRARIES/SCHOOLS and BOOK AGE RESTRICTION (for Age appropriateness) vs Leftist Banning and Censorship, ANTI-AMERICAN VALUESISM being taught in Western Cultures these days…

Like normalization of depravity/pedophilia in Schools, Libraries, etc…!!

More and more Classic literature (including Seuss and AEsops fables (can’t have “morals” and “good lessons” taught)) replaced in Kids sections of Libraries REPLACED WITH PORN AND LEFTIST INDOCTRINATION MANURE.

Yup, see related RETALK discussion about Libraries: 

I responded (in-part, see the thread link for entire conversation):

It, of course, matters on who is in charge at any given Library* just like the Schools*.

if you got the purple-hair-brigade in charge, they pull books with factual content for those they favor peddling left-wing narratives (including the PORN BOOKs (you hear so many Parents at School Board meetings railing against targeting Grade-School age Children)) in the Kids section rather than Seuss, AEsops Fables, etc…

I’ve had trouble getting my book (Terror Strikes: Coming Soon to a City Near You), historical-fiction (or as I call it FACTion) into some because it just doesn’t call out foreign terrorists but US FASCICRATS destroying Western Culture from within — that, of course, despite the evidence/facts, triggers them and they try to Cancel Culture (cuz they cannot refute their fascist tactics ( related: ) and must try to censor/silence).

Joseph M. Lenard (aka: JLenardDetroit) 
Author “Terror Strikes: Coming Soon to a City Near You”
and “How to Write a Book and Get It Published: Hints, Tips & Techniques”
addl. links:

—- further, about the Left “choice of BOOKS to peddle to Children”….

response to a post ( ) over on ReTalk…

You said it.

Seriously, sadly Education is so da** poor in the Western World these days, people know no History…

In the USA the Indoctrination factories (and other supposed FREE SOCIETY systems) are peddling Radicalism, Raunch/peRversion (tRans, pedophilia), Racism (cRt), and anti-ameRicanism – the new “R’s” – to our Entitled/lazy, participation tRophy overblown self-esteem buffoons, know nothing brats; meanwhile China is teaching their Children the traditional/core “R’s” of Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic, histoRy, scRience (see what I did there, cuz our kids are so dumb they wouldn’t know the R doesn’t belong there), biRology (not fake gendeRism), honoR, Respect, woRk-ethic, etc…



Yep, they aren’t “FIXING” anything, they are just making people DUMBER, as Leftists/Marxists always want to do. The PATHETICAL CORRUPTNESS (as I call it) is NOT about “tolerance” and “understanding” it is about trying to make a Nation HATE ITSELF rather than LEARN FROM IT’S HISTORY (as any and every Nation has blemishes) and we should be TEACHING THINGS AS THEY WERE and have HONEST DISCUSSIONS of how or if things could/should be better. You don’t have those HONEST DISCUSSIONS by just rewriting/destroying the Past (this is the whole DESTROYING STATUES bullshit all over again)!

And ask a FAT person if they think “ENORMOUS” is somehow “a better phrase for them?!?!” LOL  So that part, actually, is the LEAST OFFENSIVE CHANGE they are making as they are not white-washing the whole IF YOU ARE OVERWEIGHT IT IS UNHEALTHY and you’re likely to Live a shorter lifespan; unlike all the UNNATURAL AND UNHEALTHY FAT NORMALIZATION/GLORIFICATION going on so many other places.

A response from Mary White  over on MeWe where I posted about SOME of this…

Get the fed and the unions out. Give the power and the money back to the states. Get real teachers back in the classrooms and teach kids reading writing science math and governance. Get the woke out. No more quitting school before they graduate with passing grades. No moving kids up without passing.


And, yes, my book deals with how even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said ROE V WADE likely to be overturned eventually based upon the FARCE of “PRIVACY” (thereby do I have THE RIGHT to MURDER you and sell off your Body-parts as Planned Slaughterhood does, if it is in the PRIVACY of my own Basement? Yes, RVW logic was THAT STUPID and clearly ILLEGAL under other Laws and Constitution) scope by which it was decided and that RVW DID NOT CREATE A “RIGHT TO ABORTION” and frankly the Dobb’s decision IMO did NOT go far enough – nice they discovered the 10th Amendment all of a sudden but the Ruling completely IGNORED the 14th Amendment and CENTURY OLD PRECENDENCE of Killing a Mother and Child in Womb as long-established DOUBLE-HOMOCIDE (MURDER) and that a Child in Womb has RIGHT TO LIFE under all outlined above.


more, continues at:

Show intro
Segment 1 - Norton V Shelby
Segment 2 - Savaged Unfiltered Show NvS discussion (used w/ permission)
EPA (other agency) over-reach
Janice Daniels speech
Extra-Constitutional Dept. Of Education (10A, States' Rights)
Segment 3 - wrap-up
NVS - in the weeds - deeper down the rabbit-hole
Show outro
Thx 4 tuning in, with 168.9M+ other podcast episodes out there available
Musical interlude - Tribute to Ted Lenard Jr. (RIP) "Out Little Polish Genie" song