Here is something that I worked on to fight the Int(F)ernal Revenue Service several years ago, it is an enlargement of an original document entitled "The Cat in The Bag" but circumstances prevented me from bringing it to court as powers that be did not wish for me to do so. This study proves just how much and how long we can be deceive if those placed in positions of power and trust. They are deceivers of the worst sort. And it is just this type of deception which has cost us so many lives and blood of our loved ones.
As you know Ohio was one of the States which ratified the Sixteenth Amendment ‑ the income tax Amendment ‑ to the Constitution of the United States of America. Well a very important question which has been overlooked for the most part by the Tax Protest Movement is the question:
IS OHIO A STATE????
In manuscripts dealing with the history of the founding of the United States a study of the Northwest Territory becomes inevitable. Again and again in manuscripts by legal scholars, and case law opinions by knowledgeable judges, it is noted time after time language ‑ Ohio was "ESTABLISHED" [Please note that this is the only time that this word is used] as a State April 30, 1802, Indiana was "ADMITTED" [Also please note that from this point on in all the legal documents I am going to present this word "Admitted" is the word that will be used. To you and I it means basically the same thing but in the Legal Field their meaning is quite different] into the Union December 3, 1818, Michigan was admitted into the Union January 26, 1837.
Some of these writings and opinions were published before the turn of the century. ALL, asked in one form or another, when was Ohio ever admitted into the Union.
However, with a comprehensive study of the question the following answer finally becomes evident: Ohio may be a free, independent and sovereign state, but OHIO HAS NEVER BEEN LEGALLY ADMITTED AS ONE OF THE STATES OF THE UNION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Part of the proof of this is in the acts of Congress in 1953, wherein an attempt was made to cause Ohio to become a State.
Ohio ‑ Admission Into Union
Chapter 337 ‑ Public Law 204
(H.J. Res. 121)
Joint Resolution for admitting the State of Ohio into the Union.
Whereas, in pursuance of an act of Congress, passed on the thirtieth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, entitled "An Act to Enable the People of the Eastern Division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes", the people of the said territory did, on the twenty‑ninth day November, one thousand eight hundred and two, by a convention called for that purpose, form for themselves a constitution and state government, which constitution and state government, so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles of the articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the territory north‑west of the river Ohio, passed on the thirteenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty‑seven. Therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
The State of Ohio, shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever.
Sec. 2. This joint resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1803. Approved August 7, 1953. (p. 453 83rd. Congress First Session 1953, Congressional and Administrative News (Report) book 1.)
The legislative history is as follows:
Ohio ‑ Admission Into Union
Senate Report No. 720, July 29, 1953 (To accompany H.J. Res. 121)
House Report No. 343, May 5, 1953 (To accompany H.J. Res. 121)
The Senate Report repeats in substance House Report.
Senate Report No. 720
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 121) for admitting the State of Ohio into the Union, having considered the same report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the joint resolution do pass.
The purpose of House Joint Resolution 121 is to make formal, legal declaration of the defacto situation with respect to the admission of Ohio as a State of the United States. The facts and confusion surrounding Ohio's admission are set forth in the comprehensive historical and legal study prepared by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress set forth in full below.
The committee is of the opinion that House Joint Resolution 121 will give the desired and needed clarification to the situation. The only controversy or question concerning the measure is the narrow, technical one of the date as of which it should be operative. The report of the Department of State suggests that February 19, 1803, the date of approval of the act of the Seventh Congress (2 Stat. L. 201) by which the laws of the United States were made applicable in Ohio. The preamble to the act recited that "...the said State has become one of the United States..."
The Library of Congress study points out that the Senate Manual (S. Doc. 5, 82d Cong., p. 570) gives the date of Ohio's admission as March 3, 1803, while the Congressional Biographical Directory (H. Doc. 607, 81st Cong., p. 76, note 9) gives November 29, 1802.
The committee, however, decided to concur with the date selected by the sponsor of House Joint Resolution 121, the Honorable George H. Bender, veteran Ohio legislator now representing his State's 23d District in the House of Representatives, who provided for the date of March 1, 1803, in his bill. This was the date upon which the first Ohio State Legislature was seated, when the first Governor to office, and upon which Ohio might be said to have begun functioning as a State. The House approved Congressman Bender's date of March 1, 1803.
Reports of Executive Agencies and Library
Department of State
Washington, June 23, 1953
Hon. Hugh Butler,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
United States Senate.
My Dear Senator Butler: Reference is made to your request of May 21, 1953, for a report by the Department of State on House Joint Resolution 121, entitled "For admitting the State of Ohio into the Union."
It appears from the proposed joint resolution and from the report of the House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that the purpose of the legislation is declaratory in relation to the admission of Ohio into the Union and, more particularly, concerns the date of Ohio's admission. The act of February 19, 1803 (2 Stat. 201), applied the laws of the United States to Ohio. The preamble of that act recited that "the said State has become one of the United States of America."
In view of this, your committee might wish to consider altering the title of the joint resolution and its first section to reflect the declaratory purpose of the legislation, and might wish to reexamine the date of March 1, 1803, given in section 2.
I am informed by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report.
Thurston B. Morton Assistant Secretary,
Executive Office of the President,
Bureau of the Budget,
Washington 25, D.C., June 18, 1953.
Hon. Hugh Butler,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
United States Senate, 224A Senate Office Building
Washington 25, D.C.
My Dear Mr. Chairman: This will acknowledge your letter requesting the views of this Bureau on House Joint Resolution 121, for admitting the State of Ohio into the Union.
It is understood that the Department of State will present a report to your committee which suggests that you may wish to consider altering the title of the joint resolution and its first section and to reexamine the date of March 1, 1803, given in section 2.
These suggestions are recommended to your attention. This Bureau would have no objection to the enactment of legislation to accomplish the purpose of House Joint Resolution 121.
Rowland Hughes, Assistant Director
The Library of Congress
Legislative Reference Service
Some Notes on the Admission of Ohio to the Union
(By W.C. Gilbert, Assistant Director)
Question has been raised from time to time concerning the procedure upon admission of Ohio; some even going so far as to assert that Ohio was never "admitted" to the Union at all. The following facts appear to be pertinent in this connection:
The Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787 provided in article V that "there should be formed in the said territory not less than three nor more than five States," describing boundaries. Further, "whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousands of free inhabitants therein, such state shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent Constitution and State Government: Provided, The Constitution and government, so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles, and, so far as it can be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand."
Congress by an act of April 30, 1802 (2 Stat. 173), provided (Sec. 1): "That the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper, and the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union, upon the same footing with the original states, in all respects whatever."
In section 5, the act authorized a convention to meet at "Chillicothe" on the first Monday in November, with specific power to determine whether to form a constitution and State government at that time, or to provide for election of representatives for that purpose. Any constitution so formed "shall be republican, and not repugnant to the ordinance of the 13th of July 1787..."
The convention of 35 members met, accordingly, at Chillicothe on November 1, 1802, and on November 29, 1802, adopted a constitution.
On January 7, 1803 (Annals of Congress, 7th Cong. 2d sess., p. 21), the Senate adopted a resolution as follows: "That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any, and if any, what, Legislative measures may be necessary for admitting the State of Ohio into the Union or for extending the laws of the United States." Senators Breckenridge, Morris, and Anderson were appointed a committee; and on January 19 they reported briefly as follows: "That the people of the Eastern Division of the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio in pursuance of an act of Congress passed on the 30th day of April 1802 entitled...did on the 29th day on November 1802 form for themselves a constitution and state government. That the said Constitution and government so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in the articles of the ordinance made on the 13th day of July 1787, for the Government of the said Territory: and that it is now necessary to establish a district court within the said State, to carry into complete effect the laws of the United States within the same."
The committee was ordered to bring in a bill (same, p. 28); the bill so ordered was reported and became the act of February 19, 1803 (2 Stat. 201). The preamble and section 1 read as follows:
"Whereas, the people of the Eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, did, on the twenty‑ninth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and two, form for themselves a constitution and state government, and did give the said state the name of the 'State of Ohio,' in pursuance of an act of Congress, entitles. An act to enable the people of the Eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, and for other purposes," whereby the said state has become one of the United States of America; in order therefore to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the state of Ohio.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said state of Ohio, as elsewhere within the United States."
It then made provision for establishment of a district court with necessary officers, etc., but no further mention of "admission."
This procedure may profitably be compared with that in other cases of admission to the Union.
Thus it appears that the state of Ohio is somewhat in a class by itself, in that Congress by an enabling act authorized the formation of a new State, and did not follow it up with another declaring the State a member of the Union. This is a matter of fact. Whether such a declaration was expected or intended, is another matter...(U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News 83rd Congress First Session p. 2124‑2128‑‑Legislative History Commentaries.)
The fact remains that Ohio cannot be made a State by an act of Congress in 1953 or any other year and rectroactive back to 1802 or 1803, as Ex Post Facto Laws are prohibited to both the Federal Government (Const. Art. 1, Sec 9, Sub. d. 3) and the States (Const., Art. I, Sec. 10, Sub. d. 1). The Radin Law Dictionary Second Edition ‑ Arthur Max Radin gives the following: Ex Post Facto.
Lat. From something done afterwards. The prohibition of ex post facto punishment is the common law equivalent of the Continental rule "nulla poena sine lege" (Lat. "No punishment without a statute").
This act is ultra vires, without authority, and is not competent evidence which any court may consider for the legal existence of the "State" of Ohio as a political entity. Ohio is still not one of the Union of States of the United States.
It is amazing, almost incomprehensible, that this law has been on the books for more than 20 years and, to our knowledge, not one of the Nation's quarter million lawyers has taken public notice of the monumental legal implications inherent in this little publicized law. Corruption in government is nothing new, this is just more of the same.
The Congress, in Public Law 204, on August 7, 1953, stated: "The people of the said territory did, on the twenty‑ninth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and two, by a convention called for the purpose, form for themselves a constitution and state government, which constitution and state government, so formed in republican."
That "republican" constitution will be presented latter in this presentation. It is also an interesting fact that the said Constitution of Ohio does not provide for submitting of that document to the electorate for their ratification or rejection.
It is a political axiom that all political power is inherent in the people and, if that is so and it is, a republican form of government MUST include the consent of the governed. As those who were responsible for the writing and presentation of the Ohio Constitution of 1802 did not seem to understand that.
An Oberlin College professor, in Oberlin, Ohio, wrote in his "A History of Ohio," tells us that on the second day of the convention a decision was made not to submit the constitution to the electorate for their ratification or rejection. He tells that there were two political factions in the Territory, one headed by General Edward St. Clair, the then Governor of the Territory. However, Gen. St. Clair and his group were not in the majority in the Constitutional Convention, but the majority hated and feared Gen. St. Clair and was afraid that if the constitution were submitted to the people for ratification or rejection by popular vote, that it just might not pass. Therefore, a mandate from the people for admission to the United States was never made either for or against.
As the Ohio Constitution of 1802 was not by the consent of the governed, there arieses a very serious question as to whether Congress, either 1803 or in 1953, could have held that a republican form of government would have existed in Ohio had it been admitted.
In 1953, Congress overstated their case for it is without the power to admit Ohio into the Union on the basis of the 1802 Ohio Constitution. As the people were denied the opportunity express their opinion or to project their political power in the formation of the State Government, for the Territorial Governor was appointed by the President of the United States, not by popular election.
The Oberlin Professor tells us that the Constitution was carried to Washington, D.C., by a man named Worthington, "Where he had numerous friends from Virginia." Why he had to have "numerous" friends is not clear, except these "friends" helped to push it through without the benefit of proper procedures. When he returned, he assured the Convention that all had gone well. At that time the convention members who were in the majority selected from among themselves a sufficient number to fill the elective offices. Also soon after Mr. Worthington returned from Washington, General St. Clair was dismissed as Territorial Governor, by then President Jefferson. Then they held an election.
With about 50,000 eligible voters in the Territory, a Mr. Tipton was elected with a few more than 5,000 votes.
These elections, as described by the professor, can not be described as a legal election by any stretch of the imagination.
Congress, in its Joint Resolution of August 7, 1953, further stated as follows: "which constitution and state government, so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles of the articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the territory northwest of the river Ohio, passed on the thirteenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty‑seven."
This makes reference to an Act of Congress, July 13, 1787, which is now known as the Northwest Ordinance. Here it must be pointed out that Congress at the time was sitting by the authority of the Articles of Confederation of July 9, 1778. And that the Confederation endured until the adoption of our present constitution, the United States Constitution of 1789, as amended, and is presently the Supreme Law of the land. However, the present U.S. Constitution upheld all Acts, debts or engagements entered into under the Articles of Confederation and is clearly shown in Article VI of the Constitution of 1789, which reads as follows: "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this constitution, as under the confederation."
Therefore, we can see that the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, was one of the engagements entered into before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution of 1789 and was still in full force just as if it had been enacted under the latter.
Because of the military exploits of George Clark, the State of Virginia laid claim to and within its boundaries all the land northwest of the Ohio river to the Mississippi River, then northward to the Canadian Line. Congress wanted the described land (Northwest Territory) opened up to colonization with the prospect of dividing it into states and then admission into the Confederation. However, to accomplish this it was necessary to obtain an agreement with Virginia, and was accomplished by Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation which stated as follows: "Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Thus the Virginia Legislature on December 20, 1783, ceded the land northwest of the Ohio River to the Confederacy, with the condition "that the territory so ceded shall be laid out and formed into States, containing suitable extent of territory, not less than 100, nor more than 150 miles square."
Then the Northwest Ordinance provided that the territory so ceded by the foregoing should be divided into not less than three and not more than five states. Due to the fact that the amount of land contained in the ceded portion which comprised of more than 250,000 square miles, was enough that ten or more states could be made according to the conditions laid down by the Virginia Legislature upon passage of the Act of Cession. It could be clearly seen that the Northwest Ordinance was in violation of, the Act of Cession. Therefore the Virginia Legislature, in 1788, ratified an amendment to its Deed of Cession and made specific reference to Article V of the original Act of Cession.
This disparity between the two on the division of this territory was of no small concern to the other States, for if 10 or more states were formed, and each were in sympathy with Virginia, were to send 2 senators to Congress, the balance of power could be disturbed.
In a study of the circumstances surrounding the unsuccessful attempt in the admission of Ohio to the Union, an examination of Article V. of the northwest Ordinance of 1787, is necessary: "Article V. ‑ There shall be formed in the said territory not less than three nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her Act of Cession, and consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as follows to wit: The western State, in the said territory, shall be bound by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Wabash Rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and the Post Vincents, due north, to the territorial line between the United States and Canada; and by the said territorial line to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle states shall be bounded by the said direct line the Wabash from Post Vincents to the Ohio, by the Ohio, by a direct line drawn due north from the mouth of Great Miami to the said territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The Eastern State shall be bounded by the last mentioned direct line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said territorial line: Provided, However, and it is further understood and declared, that the boundaries of these States shall be subject so far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States in that part of the said territory which lies North of an East and West Line Drawn Through the Southerly Bend or Extreme of Lake Michigan. And whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever: and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these Articles, and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of the Confederacy such admission shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand."
On April 30, 1802, the Congress passed an Act "to enable the people of the Eastern division of the Territory northwest of the River Ohio to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purpose."
This Act of Congress authorized two things;
A. Form a Constitution and state government.
B. Apply for admission into the Union.
As was shown at the beginning the political party with the majority members appears to have adhered to the first part then obtained the dismissal of General St. Clair and then summarily rejected the second part.
Further, Congress, in the aforementioned Act, set the boundaries of Ohio on the north. This was in accord with Article V. of the Northwest Ordinance as Section 2 states: "And be it further enacted, That the said state shall consist of all the territory included within the following boundaries, to wit: bounded on the east by the Pennsylvania line, on the south by the Ohio River, to the mouth of the Great Miami River, on the west by the line drawn due north from the mouth of the Great Miami, aforesaid, and on the north by an east and west line, drawn through the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan, running east after intersecting the due north line aforesaid, from the mouth of the Great Miami, until it shall intersect Lake Erie, or the territorial line, and thence with the same through Lake Erie to the Pennsylvania Line, aforesaid:"
Now Congress, had, according to the authority granted by the Northwest Ordinance, for the first time on record had found it expedient to form a State or States in that part of the said territory which lies north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan. Therefore when the President approved this Act, the Northwest Territory had been divided according to the east and west line aforementioned, which was "as valid against the United States under the Constitution, as it was under the Articles of Confederation," and any subsequent compromise and allocation of territory north of a line to a state south of the line is void. And examination of the Ohio Constitution of 1802 described the boundaries of the State as they were stated in the Act of Admission of April 30, 1802 and then added language that was not an acceptance of statehood, in conformanity of the Act of Congress, but appeared to be a legislative conspiracy with the political party in power in Ohio to violate the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, the Virginia Act of Cession, as amended, and the Constitution of the United States. It was in fact a counter offer to the Act as passed and as a result was null and void. The wording in question is as follows, and the difference is clearly seen: "provided always, and it is hereby fully understood and declared by this convention, and that if the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan should extend so far south, that a line drawn due east from it should not intersect Lake Erie, or if it should intersect the said Lake Erie, east of the mouth of the Miami River of the lake (the Maumee River) then and in that case, with the assent of the Congress of the United States, the northern boundary of this state shall be established by, and extended to, a direct line running from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Miami Bay, after intersecting due north line from the mouth of the great Miami River, as aforesaid, thence northeast to the territorial line, and, by the said territorial line, to the Pennsylvania line."
Thus the Congress of 1803 and 1953, was without power to accept this counter offer. Not only that but the Congress of 1953 not only violated the Constitution but failed to repeal the Act of Congress of March 3, 1803, before the attempt as of March 1, 1803, THEREFORE OHIO HAS TWO DATES OF ADMISSION TO THE UNION.
It should be noted here that in 1851, Ohio did form a new constitution and submit it to the people for their ratification or rejection. However, the Ohio Constitution of 1851 claimed dominion over land in violation of the Northwest Ordinance. Which amounts to the same thing that being, a doubt that Congress had the power to recognize this constitution as being valid also. And it should be pointed out that ‑ so does Congress ‑ otherwise, why the Act of 1953???
Please review the Following: "The Federal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people...the adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether. They must be told that the ultimate authority resides in the people." (James Madison‑Federalist Papers #46)
"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principle; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people, than men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by Judges as a fundamental Law. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." (Alexander Hamilton‑Federalist Papers #78)
"Neither the legislative, executive nor judicial departments of the federal government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the constitution." (Am Jur, 2nd Sec. 210; Scott vs Sanford, 19 How 393, 15 L Ed 691)
"Any fundamental or basic power necessary to government cannot be delegated." (16 Am Jur, 2nd Sec. 210; Wilson vs Philadelphia Scho. Dist. 328 Pa 225, 195 A 90, 113 ALR 1401).
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, through having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is an inoperative as if it had never been passed...an unconstitutional law is void...it imposes no duties, confers no rights, no protection and justifies no acts performed under it...an unconstitutional law cannot repeal or supercede any existing valid law...an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way effect an existing valid one...the general principals stated above apply to the Constitution as well as to the laws of the several States insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, the construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with the Constitution, will nullify it as effectually as if it had been enacted in conflict therewith." (16 Am Jur, 2nd Sec. 178; Constitutional Law)
"Daniel Webster, James Otis and Sir Edward Coke all pointed out that the mere fact of enactment does not and cannot raise statutes to the standing of Law. Not everything which may pass under the form of statutory enactment can be considered the Law of the land." (16 Am Jur, 2nd Sec. 547)
"Law repugnant to the Constitution is Void...for I cannot call it law contrary to the first great principles of the social compact...(It) cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority." (U.S. SUP. CT., MAYBURY vs MADISON, 1803, 2 L Ed. 60; 1 CRA. 137; Ref. 6 WHEA: 246 & WAL 601)
"An unconstitutional statute through having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and void and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute and no courts are bound to enforce it." (16 AM Jur, 2nd Sec. 177)
"A characteristic feature and one of the cardinal and fundamental principles of the American Constitutional system is that the government powers are divided among the three departments of government; the legislative, the executive and the judicial; and that each of these is separate from the others. The rule is generally recognized that Constitutional restraints are overstepped where one department of government attempts to exercise powers exclusively delegated to another; officers of any branch of government cannot permit its powers to be exercised by any other branch." (16 AM JUR, 2nd Sec. 210: Constitutional Law)
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional act of the legislature protects no one. It is said that all persons are presumed to know the law, meaning that ignorance of the law excuses no one; if any person acts under an unconstitutional statute, he does so at his peril and must take the consequences." (16 AM Jur, 2nd Sec. 178; Constitutional Law)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule‑making or legislation which would abrogate them." (Miranda vs State of Arizona, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966))