CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OPINION REGARDING LOUISIANA COMMUNICATION

This Opinion addresses the Court’s position regarding the issues Oath of Office and Non-disclosure Agreements raised by the Registrars from Louisiana in their communication commencing September 04, 2012
Claude Ray: “We look forward to any written opinion(s) the Court may bring forward”.
The Court presented this Oath to the Representative of Louisiana……
Confederate Oath of Office for Governmental Officials and Employees
“I [                                                     ] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute my duties within the office of [                                            ] for the Confederate States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and Godly Christian based Rule of Law thereof. I give this oath freely and without intent to either defraud or evade. I fully understand that failure to perform under this solemn oath shall result in instantaneous removal from office by the people by way of recall impeachment. My removal may also result in criminal charges being laid against me that warrant a fine of$10,000.00 dollars, imprisonment for ten years or both when a legislature is seated under our fully restored Government. I understand and acknowledge that the Confederated Republican form of government of America’s Republic has never been surrendered and cannot be surrendered because it must always be preserved and protected.
Claude Ray: “The newly proposed oath would, in essence, exclude non-Christians from holding political office”.
Court: The newly proposed oath does not require one to be a Christian to hold office, but rather no matter what religion the individual belongs, or not, they will recognize that our laws and government are based in Christianity; and are willing under oath to protect and defend them. That they are based upon Christianity is an undeniable established fact.
Claude Ray: “Our Confederate forebears took an oath to defend the C.S.A. Constitution which protects, by the way, the right of the people to freely choose and exercise their “religious” or “not so religious” convictions”.
Court: But not to freely choose and exercise an alternate form of government based upon their “religious” or “not so religious” convictions. They are not protected to alter or displace our form of government as based upon their different religious convictions. Reference to our laws being based in Christianity is in no way a violation of our Constitution. It is the Courts responsibility to insure that no violation of our Constitution occurs during the restoration process. For a violation to occur concerning religion requires either that (1). Congress passes a law respecting an establishment of religion [this cannot occur during the restoration process, as there is no seated Congress until full restoration is achieved]; or (2). a religious test is put in place as a condition to hold office. Reference to the Confederacy being based upon Biblical Christianitydoes not amount to a religious test, as this requires no officer to be, or become a Christian as a condition to hold office. It simply states that our Christian based Government and laws must be protected and defended.
Claude Ray: “We need people of all colors, races, and……YES different religious convictions”.
Court: All are welcome as Citizens. The Confederacy has made clear that our Government represents for both Christians and non-Christians. You are reiterating a well settled issue regarding citizen recruitment.
Tom Wenn: “This is mixing church with the State. Why bring faith into this, Keep it original”.
Court:We are mandated and ardently strive to keep it original by protecting and preserving our original Christian based laws and Confederated Republican form of government which has never been surrendered [or altered] and cannot be surrendered [or altered] because it must always be preserved and protected. Although Christianity has always been relied upon as a basis for Rule of Law and Law of the Land, if we simply maintain that the Confederacy’s foundation is found in Biblical Christianity, that should suffice. This is not mixing church and state, religion and government. An overwhelming majority within the Confederacy have amply established that they do not wish to follow the Occupiers government lead and remove religion from all aspects of government.
Tom Wenn: “Why not use the Oaths that were used by our Confederates ancestors?”
Court:The Oath of Office was under review to further insure that the Christianity heart and soul of the Confederacy is preserved and protected. Many Confederates welcome opportunities to reassert the historical fact that Christian values established and are pillars of the character of our Government. The Court is mandated to thus protect and preserve our established foundational and organic form of government from being altered into something foreign to its 1781, 1787 and 1861 construct. For there to be a change to the current oaths would require that state representatives either prepare an oath for the court to review and test, or their request that the court establish an oath for review. This is within the jurisdiction of the Court, in that the Court is charged with oversight and preparing suggested revisions for a re-seated Senate to review.
Tom Wenn: “And why put limitations on the penalties?”
Court: The mere threat may act as a deterrent until there is sufficient recourse backed up under a seated Legislature.
Tom Wenn: “This oath is unenforceable due to this statement within “when a legislature is seated under a fully restored government”. “I see no reason to take an oath that is unenforceable”.
Court: Our CSA Government cannot bring a legal problem to the current U.S. legal venue without submitting to Democracy as a higher authority. Voluntarily submitting to the occupying Government’s jurisdiction suggests that we have lost the cornerstone of our position of sovereignty. Our law and process is pursuant to the “course of the Common Law.” It is understandable that when you analyze what is “enforceable” within the statutory world of Democracy, that some different conclusions can be reached.
[regarding proposed language for the Oath]
Court: It is an established fact that the Confederated Republican form of government of America’s Republic is founded upon Biblical Christianity and Godly Christian based Rule of Law. Therefore, if language such as “Biblical Christianity” or “Godly Christian based Rule of Law” should not be used, then perhaps language along the following lines should be seriously considered: I understand and affirm that the Confederated Republican form of government of America’s Republic has never been surrendered and cannot be surrendered because it must always be preserved and protected.

To: The Provisional Confederate States Constitutional Court
From: The Provisional Registrars of Louisiana
Date: September 14, 2012
Re: Oath Alteration
May it please the Court?
With all due respect, to the gentlemen of the Court, it appears that the Court is making a ruling in disregard of standard rules of procedure, because it is creating its own issue from the bench. What party moved the Court to make a ruling concerning changing the oath from the one used by President Jefferson Davis? I quote:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the Confederate States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution thereof.
To our knowledge, the issue was never presented by Louisiana, or any other litigant, in formal form to the Court. If so, would the Court please share the formal written pleas of the mover?
Therefore, presently there is no issue standing before the Court to issue a ruling concerning that specific issue. Therefore, it is respectfully asked that the Court issue no ruling from the bench on changing the oath, in any form, other than the oath used by President Jefferson Davis.


Court: A misunderstanding resulted regarding communication commencing September 04, 2012 from the gentlemen of Louisiana. This communication was interpreted as requesting that the Court establish an oath for all Confederate government offices, instead of having differing oaths for each office and no oath for others. We are disappointed for a lost opportunity to affirm and have acknowledged: (1). that our laws and government are Christian based; and (2). that our Confederated Republican form of government has never been surrendered [or altered] and cannot be surrendered [or altered] because it must always be preserved and protected.
[regarding non-disclosure agreements]
Claude Ray: “This would serve as a deterence from public officers to use government information for personal gain or use”.
Tom Wenn: “is there a problem with court producing a confidentiality agreement?”
Court: The Constitutional Court is not in favor of non-disclosure agreements at this time because: (a) They often tend to foster secrecy in government to cover up blunders that should be known to the Citizens so they may make informed decisions on whether to continue someone in office; and (b) because this matter was brought to the Court by only Louisiana Registrars instead of the entire body of representatives. [If a matter involves all government officials, it should first be brought to the Board of Governors for a vote. If passed, it should only involve the Court if a Representative feels there is a constitutional issue. Then the Court would rightfully review and render Opinion].
Gentlemen,

I have been giving some thought concerning the non-disclosure agreement that was brought to the court by the Louisiana registrars, I have reached my opinion, and my vote is Nay. The reason that I have come to this conclusion is not based on whether or not Dennis, Douglas or I fell about the secrecy such non-disclosures may create within government, but rather because this matter was brought to the Court by Louisiana registrars instead of the entire body of representatives. This non-disclosure request is for all government officials, not just Louisiana officials. If it involves all government officials, it should first be brought to the board for a vote, and if passed, it should only involve the court if one of the representatives feels there is a constitutional issue within, then it would be for the court to review and offer an opinion. Otherwise it is not a constitutional issue, and we should only be involved in constitutional issues, basing our opinion on the constitution, not our personal feelings. Personal feelings should be dealt with by the representatives before an issue ever arrives at the court.
We are entering a new era in the evolution of the restoration process. We must begin to function as a proper confederate government.
Chief Justice,
James Everett
Oath of offices final opinion rendered by the Constitutional court…..
The Court was in error, in its misunderstanding of the request concerning the Oath of office, therefore the court withdrew its suggested Oath for all CSA offices.
Non-disclosure agreement;  final opinion rendered by the Constitutional court….
The non-disclosure agreement presented to the court, was ultimately sent back to the Louisiana Representative to be sent to the State representative body for consideration.

3 Responses to “CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OPINION REGARDING LOUISIANA COMMUNICATION”

  1. Matthew James says:

    Gentlemen of the Gov. of the C.S.A.

    I am a Col. in the C.S.H.G. 9th Corps Souther California under the leadership of General Jonathon Devlin. Although I am not a Christian, I do swear to defend all religious freedoms for the Confederate States of America. I understand that I am not able to be a citizen of this nation as I do not reside in the States to which our nation was founded. I will of course support our cause until my timley demise from this world from which we are all destined! I hope someday that I too may be recognized as a citizen of the C.S.A. I hope that we regain our independance before I leave this world. I am a Freemason as was our Great General Pike. Masonry has taught me that we are all equal in the eyes of our creator and that we must all strive to bring about a better place for our children and the future.

    Sincerely

    Colonel Matthew B. James

  2. Chuck Bushong says:

    Gentlemen I’am a Confederate citizen born and living in the great Confederate State of Tennessee. I want it to be known that if I go to another country to visit that my Confederate citizenship can and will always be there as long as I maintain good standing as a citizen. Thank you, Chuck Bushong

  3. james says:

    Mr. Bushong,
    Your Confederate citizenship is permanent. You are registered as a Confederate Tennessee citizen, If you leave our Confederate States, you will remain registered as a Confederate Tennessean, however if you move to another of our Confederate States or Territories, you need to have you registration changed so that you may vote within that Confederate State.
    James…..

Leave a Reply