How can we facilitate repeal of the 17th Amendment?

[galtgulch]

Here is another project which the Campaign For Liberty is about to take up. It has to do with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. This is a copy of an article dealing with this issue which might be of interest to us. I recall that Isabel Paterson wrote about the 17th Amendment in her The Discovery of Freedom book.

Link to this article: http://tinyurl.com/czgv3n

<<<"Monday, October 15, 2007

A Magic Bullet Will Be Needed to Kill the 17th Amendment.

Current mood: anxious

Category: News and Politics

A Magic Bullet Will Be Needed to Kill the 17th Amendment.

An article by Paul Hanson

The U.S Constitution "originally" laid out the separation of powers

between the federal government and the State governments in the first

paragraph of article 1 section 3. How this paragraph accomplished

that goal will become clear later in this article. This paragraph

states:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators

from each state, chosen by the LEGISLATURE thereof, for six years;

and each Senator shall have one vote."

Then in Article I, section 4 we also find this:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators

and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the

Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or

alter such Regulations, except as to the PLACES of chusing

Senators." Those places were to be in the State Legislatures.

This balance of power was then permanently locked in by the last

clause of article 5. I call this clause the magic bullet because

it can't be stopped by any means that I can see. Article 5 dealing

with amendments to the Constitution clearly states:

"... and that NO State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its

equal Suffrage in the Senate."

By including this in the section dealing with amendments, it is

obvious that the sections of the Constitution concerning selection of

Senators and the suffrage they provided was not amendable unless ALL

of States consented and that this was to be a permanent provision. All

of the above shows how adamant the founders were about this point by

referring to the States representation on no less than 3 occasions. If

even ONE State objected to changes in an area that would affect their

suffrage, that change would be invalid. The normal ratification

process could not be used to alter this principle. Yet that is exactly

what happened when the 17th amendment was adopted.

The father of our Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 43,

further supports this claim. He states that the Constitution was

completely amendable with 2 exceptions only. One of the exceptions

dealt with the importation of slaves and became moot after 1808. The

other was the State's equal suffrage in the Senate.

It appears, then, that this all boils down to definition. What is the

definition of State suffrage? In Federalist 59, Hamilton explains

State suffrage as the State legislatures having a voice in the

Senate. The 17th amendment effectively canceled that voice and

turned it over to the citizens of the States. I submit to you that

now, however, this definition has been left entirely to the

discretion of the States themselves. The courts have no say in the

matter. I will explain this bold statement in detail later. Why do I

feel this issue vitally important to restoring States rights? For

the same reasons our Founders did, to support the concept of

federalism and the balance of power between the States and federal

government.

This concept strictly limited the federal governments powers to those

specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S.

Constitution. The People, through the Constitution, permitted the

national government to exercise certain enumerated powers. By

limiting the federal government's power and granting the States

nearly unlimited power, the federal government would merely be

protecting the States collectively and allowing the States to handle

their own affairs.

Federalism allowed the States wide latitude to run their own affairs

and by doing so, created 13 laboratories of freedom to experiment and

formulate the best system of self-governance. This situation also

created an atmosphere of competition between the States. When a State

allowed its inhabitants to prosper and keep what they earn, The State

would prosper and be allowed to continue governing its people.

When the State government became a burden to them, the people could

vote out the tyrants during the next election. Another alternative was

for the businesses and the people to move to a State that was more to

their liking. Business leaving the State would cause the tax base to

erode and so would the peoples support of that government. Sooner or

later, either the State government or the people would wake up and

correct the problem.

The 17th amendment took away the States protection from the abuses of

federal power allowing the federal government to get away with

legislating in areas where they had no business doing so. This was a

grave error seriously upsetting the balance of power so carefully

crafted into our magnificent Constitution. The concept of Federalism

was all but destroyed leading to endless abuses by the federal

government from which there is no escape.

The enforcement mechanism against federal encroachment prior to the

invalid 17th was the States' representation in the Senate. The "Peoples

House" i.e. the House of Representatives amply represents the people, while

the States were to be represented by the Senate.

The States now have no representation and we are experiencing the

folly of this venture toward pure democracy today. We were founded as

a Republic not a democracy and now we see why. All the States needed

to do in the past was to recall or direct their Senators before a bad

law made it to the floor of the Senate for a vote and the damage could

be stopped in its tracks. Hamilton's Federalist essay 59 addresses

this issue directly. This power has been unconstitutionally snatched

from the States by the invalid 17th amendment.

Careful study of the 17th amendments ratification reveals at least 10

states that failed to do so. Those 10 were FL, MS, DE, KY, UT, MD, RI,

AL, IA and GA. The clear manner in which article 5 is written places

the statement dealing with States equal suffrage in the Senate after

the words: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made..." further

showing that this was an exception to the rule regarding amendments.

With the failure those of 10 states to ratify the 17th, they were

denied their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent in

violation of Article 5, thus making the 17th amendment invalid.

However, once any state declares the 17th invalid, based on what

I have pointed out here, that State, even though it had previously

consented to the 17th can withdraw its consent anytime it so chooses.

Any State that previously consented can say "we no longer consent" because

Article 5 mentions nary a word about the permanence of any such consent.

The right of the state to withdraw that consent is further fully supported

by the clear wording of the 10th amendment:

AMENDMENT X

(1791)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States

respectively, or to the people."

The power to withdraw that consent is not prohibited by article 5 so

the power to withdraw it is reserved and retained by the States. Fits

like a glove. All the states need to do is select their Senators in

their legislatures and send them to Washington. Simple. And what would

the courts say about move such as this? No court can attempt to make

the State comply with the 17th because they won't have jurisdiction to

try the case. Here's why:

When a sovereign State declares the 17th amendment invalid, the Senate

would be unlawfully seated. It would then follow that the Supreme

Court is also unlawfully seated as is the entire federal bench because

the Senate approves those federal court appointments including the

Supreme Court. Anything decided by those federal courts would be null

and void. The State could simply refuse to recognize the jurisdiction

of the court system. The States could argue that the federal judiciary

has been confirmed by a Senate that did not have the states best

interest at heart.

The only other argument that could be made against the State would be

the power of the Senate to be the ultimate judge of their elections

and refuse to seat the Senators. However, how can an illegitimate

Senate make such a decision? The answer is, they can't.

I have presented these facts in many forums over the years and they

have never been successfully challenged. One argument that always

seems to arise is this: "Well, all the states do have equal suffrage

because they still each have two senators." This invalid argument

comes from a lack of full understanding of what "suffrage" really

stands for and by a focus on the first term "equal" while ignoring the

second, "suffrage." The point of my entire article is that the States

(meaning the State Legislatures) are the ones who have lost suffrage.

The people of the State now elect Senators and are in possession of

that suffrage. The real point is who do these senators now represent?

After I make this point, I usually get this: "Well, the people ARE

the "State." This is not entirely accurate either. In all instances I

can find in the Constitution where it is speaking about the States, it

is speaking of the Legislature of the States. The best example I can

find that clearly delineates between the two is the last clause of

that wonderful 10th Amendment again. That clause clearly lists the

"People" and the "States" as two separate entities. If they were the

same thing, there would be no need to list them both in the very

same sentence.

There are other far-reaching implications of an invalid 17th and I'm

sure that opponents of what's been written here will use them to fight

these truths. I will not give them ammunition by detailing what those

far reaching implications are. However, I will say this: If we

endeavor to rid ourselves of the invalid 17th amendment in the manner

outlined above, be prepared for the fight of your lives because there

are many entrenched interests that would like nothing more than to

never have this information reach the light of day.

There have been many articles written concerning the "repeal" of the

17th amendment. While many of these articles correctly point out the

folly of the 17th, they fail to realize that a movement to repeal is

nothing more than a pipe dream. The only way to remove the 17th

amendment is through outright repudiation using the method I have

described above. I will explain why below.

There are 2 methods laid out in Article 5 for amending the

Constitution. One of those methods is through a Convention of the

States. I will not go into details as to why this method should never

be used under any circumstances other than to say that if you truly

value your freedoms, this method should be avoided at all costs. The

other method would be an exercise in futility. To use the method that

all the other amendments have used since the 10th would entail having

to first convince 67 senators to vote themselves out of a job. Then

290 House members would have to vote for the repeal of an amendment

which will make all the laws they want to pass much more difficult

to push through the Senate. A senate which as a result of its passage

would now be jealously guarding the rights of the States that the

House laws frequently trample. If that isn't enough, you need to get

38 state legislatures to vote for repealing an amendment over the

objections of the people who would feel like their right to vote was

being stolen (a right which never really existed due to an invalid

17th). To educate the masses in 38 separate states that the 17th

amendment was a mistake is an insurmountable task. To do it for just

one, as would be the case in a move to repudiate it, Maybe. In a

repudiation argument, it could be demonstrated to the people that the

right to vote for their Senators should have never been theirs in the

first place due to the fraudulent manner in which the 17th was

adopted.

My first target for a move to repudiate would be done in a State that

swings to the right most of the time and where the voters are well

informed and leery of the feds. Utah would be my choice since Utah

rejected the 17th outright and they have been stung recently by

federal land grabs. Please join me in this endeavor to repudiate the

17th and get the concept of federalism firmly back on track.

We must educate ourselves and our posterity in the wonderful documents

that founded our great Republic if we are ever to set it back on

course toward freedom and prosperity. That is why I'm writing this

today. My positions on the 17th amendment are supported by the

Constitution of the United States including the 10th amendment and

"The Federalist Papers", specifically Madison 43 and Hamilton 59.

Thanks for your attention,

Sincerely,

Paul C. Hanson ">>>

[Brant Gaede]

It won't be repealed.

Anything in the Constitution can be amended. If Madison thought otherwise he was wrong as has been proved.

--Brant

Edited April 30, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[galtgulch]

It won't be repealed.

Anything in the Constitution can be amended. If Madison thought otherwise he was wrong as has been proved.

--Brant

Brant,

So you think not? What one must take into consideration is that "the times they are a'changing!"

Given the current crop of state legislators your assessment is flawless. But now that the Campaign For Liberty exists it will be one of the goals of the members in those ten states to get elected to the state legislature noisily running on the platform of 17th AMENDMENT REPEAL.

I assure you that although you are right under the present circumstances, we intend to change all of that, and in time we will outnumber those of the status quo.

www.campaignforliberty.com 30Apr 6 AM 150203 and growing!

And remember that what can be amended as was Prohibition can be repealed.

We will do it!

gulch

[BaalChatzaf]

And remember that what can be amended as was Prohibition can be repealed.

We will do it!

gulch

No you won't. Repeal of the 17-th is a diminishing of People's Sovereignity. Do you want pols deciding who votes in the Senate? Like the recent event of Bad Boy Boglijivitch appointing his buddy to the Senate or putting up the Senate seat for sale?

Better to repeal the 16-th amendment than the 17-th.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

Here is another project which the Campaign For Liberty is about to take up. It has to do with the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

A Magic Bullet Will Be Needed to Kill the 17th Amendment.

An article by Paul Hanson

This would be an interesting debate for a high school or undegraduate class. It might have made an interesting aside on The West Wing. I believe that it is too arcane for most people to understand. Also, it just "sounds" bad to an electorate that has come to believe in its absolute wisdom. As Baal points out, it comes across as putting the senate in the hands of cronies. Moreover the Civil War settled many of the issues from the Federalist debates. The central government is no longer a compact among the states, but among the people.

Of all the things there are to spend your time on ... the income tax, taxation in general, regulations. For instance, consider this excellent (and short: 8 pages) statement from Cypress Semiconductor president T. J. Rodgers on the effects of FASB rules:

In 2007, only $8.5 billion or 7.7 percent of the total $109 billion in issuances of Initial Public Offerings were launched on U.S. stock exchanges, down from 60.8 percent a decade ago.

www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp105.pdf -

This, to me, is far more consequential than the mechanism for selecting senators.

[Judith]

It's an interesting point. How do those at C4L think things in general would improve for the better if the Senate were composed of those appointed by State Legislatures? I considered it, but thinking about how power tends to corrupt, I ended up wondering if things eventually wouldn't be much the same as they are.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

It won't be repealed.

Anything in the Constitution can be amended. If Madison thought otherwise he was wrong as has been proved.

--Brant

Brant,

So you think not? What one must take into consideration is that "the times they are a'changing!"

Given the current crop of state legislators your assessment is flawless. But now that the Campaign For Liberty exists it will be one of the goals of the members in those ten states to get elected to the state legislature noisily running on the platform of 17th AMENDMENT REPEAL.

I assure you that although you are right under the present circumstances, we intend to change all of that, and in time we will outnumber those of the status quo.

www.campaignforliberty.com 30Apr 6 AM 150203 and growing!

And remember that what can be amended as was Prohibition can be repealed.

We will do it!

gulch

It'd make no dif. if the 17th is repealed or not. In the meantime the house is burning down.

--Brant

[galtgulch]

www.campaignforliberty.com 30Apr 6 AM 150203; 1May 150422 and growing!

>>>"It'd make no dif. if the 17th is repealed or not. In the meantime the house is burning down."<<<

Brant,

I agree. There are many distractions as usual. I wonder what you anticipate will save the day? Do you suppose that the American people will spontaneously wise up? I don't think so either.

I often feel reading some of the topics on this site that the deck chairs are being rearranged on the Titanic.

It is becoming clear that the efforts of the www.YALiberty.org which are now on hundreds of campuses will enlighten generations of college students with a more rational perspective. In time there will be enough like minded people to attain representation in all levels of government.

The ideological struggle for man's mind continues.

Given the internet this may happen faster than ever. Especially now that we are getting a taste of blatant socialism and its cost.

gulch

[Roger Bissell]

Eventually, a LOT of laws, including amendments to and portions of the Constitution, will have to be changed. But my vote for top (or near top) priority for repeal is the "Patriot Act."

Civil libertarians were so adamant that this was one of the worst possible infringements of individual liberty when the Bush regime pushed it through--but now they are strangely silent. Wonder why? Perhaps because now it is a tool standing ready for a guy they support to use it to bully and suppress people he and they oppose?

"Right-wing extremists" unite. Otherwise, we Americans--the last, best hope of mankind--will be absorbed into an Orwellian/Obamanian anthill, and humanity will not soon re-emerge.

REB

[Alfonso Jones]

Eventually, a LOT of laws, including amendments to and portions of the Constitution, will have to be changed. But my vote for top (or near top) priority for repeal is the "Patriot Act."

Civil libertarians were so adamant that this was one of the worst possible infringements of individual liberty when the Bush regime pushed it through--but now they are strangely silent. Wonder why? Perhaps because now it is a tool standing ready for a guy they support to use it to bully and suppress people he and they oppose?

"Right-wing extremists" unite. Otherwise, we Americans--the last, best hope of mankind--will be absorbed into an Orwellian/Obamanian anthill, and humanity will not soon re-emerge.

REB

I definitely agree - the "Patriot Act" needs to be repealed. Too far, and too much individual liberty compromised.

Bill P

[Selene]

Roger and folks:

There is no way they will let the Patriot Act go, they may rename it as the Secured Homeland Individuals Empowerment Law Department or SHIELD.

We could put O'Biwan on a half black half white horse or the horse of a different color from the Wizard of Oz for the digitized cartoon video.

The Miracle Bullet Needed...

Now this is fascinating that that phrase is used in this article because it is the week that the conflated amoral slug, the banal bandit from the beautiful State of Pennsylvania, Arlen "Quisling" Specter [or is it SPECTRE from James Bond] switched parties.

Now the marxist agenda cannot be stopped.

However, this piece of pond scum was the Warren Commission attorney who was responsible for the "creation" or "invention" or "let's pull this one out of my ass" theory of the "Magic Bullet" that "proved" that an adequate Marine marksman, [which is pretty damn good], fired three shots, in 5.3 seconds, with a rifle that was called the "surrender weapon" by Mussolini's army because of its tendency to blow up in your face, o,r not be able to hit a fly in the barrel, and put two of three in his target. The last one through a leafless "hole" in the Elm tree in his line of sight that was the kill shot.

Sounds like a man I can trust.

Adam

P.S. A real bullet will be needed to kill the 17th Amendment. Hunting season is open until infinity!

[Chris Grieb]

Roger; I agree about the Patriot Act.

Gulch; Let's repeal the Income Tax amendment. This is why I find the Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty just silly. Please don't tell I would have po-poed the Founding Fathers.

[galtgulch]

Roger; I agree about the Patriot Act.

Gulch; Let's repeal the Income Tax amendment. This is why I find the Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty just silly. Please don't tell I would have po-poed the Founding Fathers.

Chris et al,

I know it is a pipe dream and quixotic to even hope that our salvation is at hand.

I do expect that once this C4L movement reaches a kindling point its growth will accelerate into the tens of millions.

There are certain facts which once understood by the proverbial man in the street cause his heart to begin to pound as he or she appreciates simultaneously that our government is becoming tyrannical and that the Red Sea has parted and the path to freedom exists!

It might be when I tell them that the impetus to create a Federal government over the original thirteen sovereign states was the fact that debtors who had borrowed gold coins before the American Revolution wanted to repay with paper currency instead of the gold coins called for in their contracts. The debtors pressured their state legislators to issue paper currency and to allow them by new laws to change the contract clauses which they had signed to repay with gold coins, so called ex post facto laws.

Their creditors decided to get together and write a Constitution which would guarantee individual rights, forbid ex post facto laws and Bills of Attainder, and make the States hold nothing but gold and silver coin as legal tender. (Article 1 Section 9 and 10)

It is then a simple matter to point out that since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 that the purchasing power of the dollar has been diminished by over 95%. It helps as well to mention that the Founders appreciated the evils of a central bank and paper currency that Jefferson abolished the first central bank and Jackson abolished the second central bank in their time.

Adding that taxpayers have to pay interest to the Federal Reserve on the loan of our currency which they continue to create from the private Fed to our Treasury.

The blatant expropriation engenders righteous outrage and the motivation to stop this madness which is eating out our substance as documented in the original Declaration of Independence! No wonder those in the know within the movement are filled with passion in the cause to overthrow our tormentors who are presently in power and who pay no attention to the Constitution which is supposed to protect our rights if only those who take the solemn oath to uphold it kept their word to do so.

That realization further enrages freedom lovers and motivates them to enlist others to figuratively pick up the rifle as did the minutemen who responded when their powder was threatened by the armies of the King.

In this context can someone explain why census takers carry a GPS device and are registering the GPS location of the front door of each house within forty feet of it? Is that intimidating or what?

And that is happening a year before the census is due to be taken. Do you know that there are penalties for refusing to answer the many personal questions asked in the census and even larger fines for giving false answers!

Watch this movement's membership explode into the tens of millions in years to come.

www.campaignforliberty.com membership 2May 150,587

gulch

Edited May 2, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Yep, let's go right for the marxist wing spin on the Founders as "creditors". I will bet you just loved Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.

"His works included radical re-evaluation of the Founding Fathers of the United States, whom he believed were more motivated by economics than by philosophical principles" Wiki

"As a leader of the "Progressive School" of historiography, he introduced themes of economic self-interest and economic conflict regarding the adoption of the Constitution and the transformations caused by the Civil War. Thus he emphasized the long-term conflict among industrialists in the Northeast, farmers in the Midwest, and planters in the South that he saw as the cause of the Civil War. His study of the financial interests of the drafters of the United States Constitution (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution) seemed radical in 1913, since he proposed that the U.S. Constitution was a product of economically determinist, land-holding founding fathers. He saw ideology as a product of economic interests." Wiki

Care to clarify this?

"Their creditors decided to get together and write a Constitution which would guarantee individual rights, forbid ex post facto laws and Bills of Attainder, and make the States hold nothing but gold and silver coin as legal tender. (Article 1 Section 9 and 10)"

As you may remember Gulch, we have two "street" issues that we can run hard and fast with:

1) the fact that just men at the age of 18 must still register for a program that does not exist, a draft. Not to mention that it is discriminatory based on sex, but I guess that is ok as long as the sex does not have ovaries.

2) the fact that the census can only "enumerate" and that is another street issue. See my story about the 2000 census. Lots of objectivists got created out of that piece of street theatre, not to mention the empowerment of many citizens naturally born and foreign born in my neighborhood.

I would like to know about the "penalties" and be specific if you can because I am thinking of starting a federal district court class action suit and would like to have a second cause of action that has actual penalties. The non-registration for the draft has serious penalties.

Adam

Edited May 2, 2009 by Selene

[pchanson]

It won't be repealed.

Anything in the Constitution can be amended. If Madison thought otherwise he was wrong as has been proved.

--Brant

Hi Brant,

Mind if the author of the above article weighs in here??

Actually, the supreme court disagrees with you Brant (I'll cite the case later). There were in fact exceptions to amending the Constitution. Here is article V in it's entirety so you can get the full context:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Seems pretty clear that the wording here (beginning at: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.") were specific enumerations of exceptions to the amendment process. I gather that they were exceptions to the amendment process due to the locations of the words. That location being of course the actual section of the Constitution (Article V) that not only allows for amendments to be made, but describes the manner in which to do so. As you point out, the Constitution is completely amendable except for portions of article 1 (which became moot after 1808), and anything dealing with states suffrage in the Senate. If I'm not mistaken, this state suffrage and the equality of such was actually the better part of "The Great Compromise" upon which hinged the entire success or failure of the Convention. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this point for I have not researched "The Great Compromise" fully.

But I have researched the exception to amendments listed here in Article V. That research has been unanimous in its entirety in the fact that there were exceptions. Even wikipedia has it (somewhat) correct:

"Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Such amendments may be proposed by the United States Congress or by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become valid, amendments must then be ratified by either the legislatures of or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the several states, and may not deny any state its equal right to vote in the Senate without its consent."

Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_...es_Constitution

As for the Supreme Court weighing in on this issue, it has done so in DILLON v. GLOSS, 256 U.S. 368 (1921):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...56&page=368

The above case is not exactly on point re: the 17th amendment, but it does clearly represent the opinion of the court on the matter of exceptions to the amendment process. The pertinent wording being this:

"An examination of article 5 discloses that it is intended to invest Congress with a wide range of power in proposing amendments. Passing a provision long since expired,8 it subjects this power to only two restrictions: one that the proposal shall have the approval of two-thirds of both houses, and the other excluding any amendment which will deprive any state, without [256 U.S. 368, 374] its consent, of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

To clarify above portion of the decision, the wording "Passing a provision long since expired," refers to the following wording in article 5: "prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;." and actually has long since expired (1808 which was 113 years prior to this decision). However, the Court is clear here that there were still restrictions to the amendment process. One of which was that no amendment could be passed that could deprive any state it's equal suffrage in the Senate.

There are many other resources out there which clearly highlight the exceptions to the amendment process and since this reply is already quite lengthy, I'll let your fingers do the walking to find them. If you find any evidence contrary to what I've written about these exceptions, I would welcome the opportunity to examine them.

Also, the fraudulent manner in which the 17th amendment was adopted proves nothing in regards to exceptions to amending the Constitution. What it does prove is that fraud exists, whether by design or oversight.

Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,

Paul C. Hanson

[BaalChatzaf]

Is it such a good idea to let the State politicians decide who represents all the people of a State in the Senate? Look at the recent doings in Illinois. The Senate participates in making laws which bind the people of the State. Shouldn't the people have a say in that. And should that say be indirect through elected State officials?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Ba'al:

As you know, the purpose of the founders, at one level, was to dissipate power over various "platforms" and delimit by enumerating powers that each "platform" [branch] were delegated by "the people" and their "creator".

What it should be and what it is are exclusive and textual.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al:

As you know, the purpose of the founders, at one level, was to dissipate power over various "platforms" and delimit by enumerating powers that each "platform" [branch] were delegated by "the people" and their "creator".

What it should be and what it is are exclusive and textual.

Adam

The founders were willing to put money bills and such like in the hands of people directly elected by the folks they represent. Why should the Senate be any different. For that matter why do we need two Houses to make laws?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Ba'al:

Can a unicameral legislature "make" laws - of course. Many states in the US have unicameral legislatures.

The structural gestalt that the Founders operated "in" and "from" looked to dissipate power to the different platform.

The French Revolution and the "tyranny of the masses" was just as feared as the tyranny of the king/state.

The bicameral approach from two different process bases was to slow down the legislative process to give time for true

reflection.

Hence the statement that the Senate was the bowl where the hot milk from the Congress would cool.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

It won't be repealed.

Anything in the Constitution can be amended. If Madison thought otherwise he was wrong as has been proved.

--Brant

Hi Brant,

Mind if the author of the above article weighs in here??

Actually, the supreme court disagrees with you Brant (I'll cite the case later). There were in fact exceptions to amending the Constitution. Here is article V in it's entirety so you can get the full context:

Paul C. Hanson

You are a fine constitutional writer. However, I stand by my statement. The Constitution can be amended directly through a formal amendment process and indirectly by Supreme Court interpretation and consent in any respect whatsoever and it matters not if the Court agrees with you or me. The Constitution cannot defend itself. That defense needs well trained, rational, freedom loving brains--yours, for instance. This country is awash in ostensibly unconstitutional laws sanctioned by the Court. Every one represents an amendment. Our laws have defined the Constitution much more than the Constitution has defined or influenced our laws. In this respect the Supreme Court had its back broken by FDR's threat to pack the Court in the 1930s. My Grandfather, Irving Brant, testified before Congress in support of FDR and was criticised for quoting Madison to that effect. He then went and wrote a biography of Madison.

--Brant

[pchanson]

It won't be repealed.

Anything in the Constitution can be amended. If Madison thought otherwise he was wrong as has been proved.

--Brant

Hi Brant,

Mind if the author of the above article weighs in here??

Actually, the supreme court disagrees with you Brant (I'll cite the case later). There were in fact exceptions to amending the Constitution. Here is article V in it's entirety so you can get the full context:

Paul C. Hanson

You are a fine constitutional writer. However, I stand by my statement. The Constitution can be amended directly through a formal amendment process and indirectly by Supreme Court interpretation and consent in any respect whatsoever and it matters not if the Court agrees with you or me. The Constitution cannot defend itself. That defense needs well trained, rational, freedom loving brains--yours, for instance. This country is awash in ostensibly unconstitutional laws sanctioned by the Court. Every one represents an amendment. Our laws have defined the Constitution much more than the Constitution has defined or influenced our laws. In this respect the Supreme Court had its back broken by FDR's threat to pack the Court in the 1930s. My Grandfather, Irving Brant, testified before Congress in support of FDR and was criticised for quoting Madison to that effect. He then went and wrote a biography of Madison.

--Brant

Hi Brant,

This is the part that saddens me:

"This country is awash in ostensibly unconstitutional laws sanctioned by the Court. Every one represents an amendment. Our laws have defined the Constitution much more than the Constitution has defined or influenced our laws. In this respect the Supreme Court had its back broken by FDR's threat to pack the Court in the 1930s."

You are correct on all your points made here about the constitution being amended on nearly a daily basis with nearly every law passed or court decision made without regard to what the constitution actually says. That is why I'm doing this. Tilting at windmills has never been one of my favorite things to do, but if enough people tilt it, it just may tip over.

The thing about the particular method I suggest using is that it bypasses the "broken back" of the court. The only thing standing in the way of it is the Constitutions designation of the Senate itself as being the ultimate judge of it's elections. However, the Senate has the same problem the court has. They are improperly seated (tainted by the fraud of the 17th) and any decision they would make would have no true legal standing. However, it would probably stand anyway. But, If 1 state can be convinced to take up this fight, it may start a slowly building groundswell to 25 states signing on that will eventually leave the Senate without a quorum to vote to keep them out. This type of action is already actually taking place in numbers approaching 25 by states claiming sovereignty through resolutions being passed in their legislatures so there is hope.

All of this is a lofty goal, but the alternative is a Senate that is essentially elected by the lobbyists who bribe them with campaign funds and care nothing about their constitutional limits nor their constituents. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that calls from constituents regarding NAFTA or GATT that were running 1,000 to 1 against and yet they voted for it anyway. That's not the senate I want, and others should reject it as well. The method I've described can provide that.

A few people in the thread here also have concerns about going back to the original intent. The federal governments over-reaching power into the affairs of the states is a direct result of the lack of a voice in one branch of congress of the state legislatures. Judging by current conditions, what could it hurt? The other solution would be a fully educated electorate in the proper role of government and they would have to be constantly monitoring every vote of their senator. They would also have to be able to get together and agree to throw the bum out if he exceeds constitutional authority, all of which is very difficult to do and maybe even impossible in todays climate with all the demagoguery and the money to project it floating around out there.

But getting several neighborhoods together and asking your state representative to come visit, or going to visit him is quite easy. Then, you can point out how the current senator is ignoring the constitution and that you want him reigned in or removed. If he ignores you, start a grassroots campaign against the representative. A state district is fairly small and it won't really take all that much effort to toss him/her out. Not as much as it would take to toss out a senator. All it takes is a dedicated few in each district to get legislators into office that follow both their oath of office and polices the states 2 senators to do the same.

It's a big job, all of this... But it's a big problem so that is to be expected. The thing about it is, it's not an impossible one like a straight repeal would be, or forcing a sitting senator out of office by campaigning against him on a statewide basis because he doesn't follow the constitution. It will take a lot of help to accomplish what has been set out in the article, but then, that's why I wrote it and ask that it be considered. If anyone who reads it decides it has merit, they may help. At the very least they wouldn't be in opposition to it when and if it becomes an issue in their state.

I appreciate the compliments and thanks for reading it.

Sincerely,

Paul C. Hanson

Edited May 20, 2009 by pchanson

[Selene]

Paul:

"The thing about the particular method I suggest using is that it bypasses the "broken back" of the court. The only thing standing in the way of it is the Constitutions designation of the Senate itself as being the ultimate judge of it's elections. However, the Senate has the same problem the court has. They are improperly seated (tainted by the fraud of the 17th) and any decision they would make would have no true legal standing. However, it would probably stand anyway. But, If 1 state can be convinced to take up this fight, it may start a slowly building groundswell to 25 states signing on that will eventually leave the Senate without a quorum to vote to keep them out. This type of action is already actually taking place in numbers approaching 25 by states claiming sovereignty through resolutions being passed in their legislatures so there is hope."

You are referring to the recent move by Oklahoma ..yes.

Texas is already in the fold.

Tenth Amendment Center

You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

Complete Article: view link

"...this movement is really picking up steam. I only recently heard about HB 246 passed in Montana last month:

FLASH - Good News - Gov signs HB 246

Montana Hunting Today

GOOD NEWS! Governor Schweitzer signed HB 246, MSSA’s Montana-made guns bill, today. HB 246 declares that any guns and ammunition made and retained in Montana are not subject to ANY federal regulation under the authority of Congress to regulate commerce “among the states.”

Nice touch Montana.

State Sovereignty Bills Gaining Traction

10th Amendment Rights Invoked

States, hounded mercilessly by the Feds, jumping on board

by Alan Korwin, Author

Gun Laws of America

Feb. 10, 2009

In a dramatic break from the status quo, seven states of the Union have officially declared their intention to enforce the Constitution against the central government. The goal is to reestablish state sovereignty and federalism (the principle that the states and the federal government have separate powers and authority independent of each other), which has been curtailed by federal forces and Congress.

ARIZONA:

"The House and Senate concurring: 1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers...

Read it all-- http://tinyurl.com/bkhxt7

NEW HAMPSHIRE:

A Resolution affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles... all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force...

any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution... shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to... IV. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition...

Read it all -- http://tinyurl.com/alyvjz

MONTANA:

"Sec. 4. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration..."

Read it all: http://tinyurl.com/d2l5hu

MICHIGAN:

"We hereby affirm Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government..."

Read it all: http://tinyurl.com/agfc7o

MISSOURI:

"The Missouri House of Representatives strongly opposes the federal Freedom of Choice Act because: (1) It seeks to circumvent the states' general legislative authority as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution...

Read it all: http://tinyurl.com/crolkc

WASHINGTON:

"...and, That this serve as a notice and demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers."

Read it all: http://tinyurl.com/bl92fa

OKLAHOMA:

"Notice and demand to the federal government... to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers."

Read it all: http://tinyurl.com/dy7lwq

Your state isn't on this list? Then it's time to act, at last. Call your local gun-rights group, or legislators, and demand a state-protection act this year! The more states that do, the more pressure we can legitimately bring to halt federal erosion of our rights. Do it before gun-ban laws reach the floor of Congress, like, before tomorrow.

I had added in Arizona, but the legislative aides who do the drafting removed:

“Any person, or any person with a government agency under that person's control, attempting to enforce a federal law, regulation, policy or precedent against residents of Arizona, in contravention of, in conflict with, or infringing upon this act, shall be fined, not to exceed $100,000, and imprisoned for not more than five years, per occurrence.”

Language like that needs to be in a lot of laws being drafted by our "representatives."

Background on what The Sovereignty Movement means: http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/?p=849

The lamestream media has maintained an eerie silence on the entire issue, and could not be reached for comment. In other news, their circulation continues to plummet. The L.A. Times continued with its quarterly firings of staff, and the N.Y. Times is rumored to be on the brink of bankruptcy, shored up by a rumored infusion of cash from a wealthy Mexican financier and the proposed sale of its assets, including the Boston Red Sox. http://tinyurl.com/8dhz5b

Alternate interpretation of the 10th Amendment resolution rush:

Several states have sanctimoniously passed non-binding resolutions that are worthless trash, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, designed to placate a half-asleep public. They are hollow, have no effect in law, the spineless "servants" who introduce them know this, and they act just so they can say, "Oh what a good boy am I." Let one, just one, introduce such a bill with backbone and teeth, that truly repulses federal government intrusions and attacks on the 10th Amendment, and I'll change my tune.

I guess that would be Montana, which has enacted a 10th-Amendment-based statute called the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. A nice rumor sheet about the bill has blazed across the web. My first hand details on the bill are posted here.

You should personally take up this cause, and: 1 - Ask your reps why they didn't actually stand up to stop the abuses and usurpations before now; 2 - Ask if they know their "joint resolutions" bills do nothing actual (they know this of course, so see what they tell you, it can be revealing); and 3 - Ask if they would stand up to stop a single federal abuse -- like Montana is doing.

Or just coast along and be happy they passed this non-binding feckless balderdash that makes you feel good provided you don't look at it too hard.

Contact:

Alan Korwin

BLOOMFIELD PRESS

"We publish the gun laws."

4848 E. Cactus #505-440

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

602-996-4020 Phone

602-494-0679 FAX

1-800-707-4020 Orders

http://www.gunlaws.com

alan@gunlaws.com

Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog

Encourage politicians to pass more laws...

with expiration dates.

Thanks Paul

I like the underbelly approach - the blade sinister is all they deserve.

Adam