http://legislature.maine.gov/const/#aA
Read article X, section 7.
I read the state constitution today for some opposition research and I found something strange. Parts of it are in effect, but are not allowed to be printed. What is the history behind this, and does it violate the 1st Amendment of the US constitution?
No, it doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment of the constitution. Those are segments of the Maine Constitution that are obsolete, like the election of the first legislature, land grants by Massachusetts still being in force, provisions dealing with Maine native tribes, and so on.
And in any case, the footnote tells you exactly where to find them if you need to.
Sorry, but that’s not what it says at all.
It says that those sections shall be omitted from what might be casually called “official” copies of the constitution. This is presumably to avoid some sort of misunderstanding.
Better luck next time, Maine.
Maine, it can’t even.
Those sections were relevant to the transition of the Northern District of Massachusetts into separate statehood, all or part of their language and provisions having become moot or superceded or their mandate been completed . In particular Section 5 incorporated lengthy provisions approved by the Masachusetts legislature prior to the spinoff that applied to that process.
Section 7 says the official version of the constitution that goes in books of the Laws of Maine will not contain the text of those sections, but clarified specifically that this will NOT invalidate the effects and consequences of actions and decisions taken under them, and that in the case of the provisions of Section 5 the state still can’t act contrary to them.
Most other states would likely just have repealed the mooted sections altogether and inserted a new one providing for what provisions they DID want to continue in effect.
Yes it is what it says, it says that no one can print “The laws of the state” , with the Article X, section 1 2 and 5 text in place in the prefix. I dont see how that is applied to congress’s own printing vs anyone else.
But the US constitution probably means that anyone is free to print the sections, and the idea of section 7 is totally moot in itself, however if someone chooses to print “See section 7” or just not print anything for 1 2 and 5, they are free to do that too. So basically its just an instruction , like a guideline, from the people who voted for section 7, and not really an enforceable law.
The wiki entry says that any bill that attempts to modify Article X section 5, such as putting it to referendum or something, should not contain the text of the current section 5. This is not correct as section 7 says “the laws of the state” and not “bills in the houses” , also the old version wouldn’t really be “prefixed” to anything, it would be intermediate in the bill, not in a prefix. Also a quote of what the old , more original, section 5 is would (or was ) , would not be “the laws of the state”, but rather a quote of what the law was way back when, as there have been many laws which override section 5, then the section 5 itself is not closely representing “the law”.
The section 7 is also absurd because it could only possibly apply to printers and publishers actually in Maine, and there being 49 other of the USA states, some territories, and 300+ other countries for it to be published in, its an extremely null clause. The wikipedia entry has the full text of Article X, section 5.
Obligatory SNL clip.