|
JBS.org Forums |
|
|
|
|
Subject :repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any..
2009-06-24 04:18:38
|
|
|
| mgall777 |
|
| Just Arrived |
 |
Joined: 2008-07-05 16:41:12
Posts: 14
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
I don't know, am I crazy? someone want to give guidance or correction to this? what I am posting below I've sent out to the entire state legislature of Maine. I've had buffoonish Maine "state sovereignty CHAMPIONS" fighting me about this. they won't even discuss it, won't look it in the eyes.
mgall777
www.tenthamendmentextremist.org
"The state governments are essentially part of the system. The senators represent the sovereignty of the states. They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states. But suppose that they were to be chosen by the people at large (17th amendment)? Whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states (Article 1 Section 3), but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. WHAT WOULD BECOME OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND ON WHOM WOULD DEVOLVE THE DUTY OF DEFENDING THEM AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?" - Fisher Ames in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
"WHAT WOULD BECOME OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS?" We have one up on Founder Fisher Ames. We can now answer that question conclusively. Let’s make the assumption that you agree that there exists an overbearing Federal Government, that the State Governments as not much more now than appendages of it, and their purpose is mostly to carry out the Federal central dictates. What is the solution to this assumed problem? Is the solution simply to reaffirm (as I spelled out in the accompanying letter) the states’ 10th Amendment rights via a resolution? This would be only a fine start, it’s a definitive statement of concurrence with the true intents of the Federalist system that the Founders set up with the Constitution.
But how exactly are the states’ rights, state government powers and authority, that are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" by the 10th Amendment, implemented in order to halt Federal encroachments? Is there a single simple mechanism for achieving this? The answer lies in what caused the separation of power between state and federal governments to be dissolved.
What was the cause? There is one very simple answer. Even if you don’t believe a system of Federalism was established by the Constitution, or believe that a central power in Washington is the answer to all, or even don’t know what a system of Federalism is…the following review may be of some service to you.
Definition: Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments.
It was the conclusion of the Founders, from studying centuries of history, and multifarious forms of government, that the most essential mechanism needed to reduce the abuse of power was one that decentralized and divided power into receptacles that checked and balanced each other. I could go on for pages and pages presenting quote upon quote to prove the point. But being that you are likely acquainted with many of them, and for the sake of brevity and keeping within the scope of this letter, I will simply refer you back to the two quotes of Madison and Jefferson presented in the accompanying letter.
The system of Federalism they crafted called for separation of power-authority into two main differing realms of operation. The National government operating purely in external spheres, with matters that dealt with foreign nations, and disputes between states. The State governments were to operate purely in the internal spheres within their respective states. This dynamic created the largest and most important division and check on power to keep it from consolidating to a National center, as was the case throughout history, which always led inexorably to government oppression of the people it was suppose to protect. This dynamic also created the and most important division and check on power to keep it from reverting back wholly to the individual state level, thus recreating the failures of the Articles of Confederation, where each individual colony behaves as its own nation within itself. This reversion would have led to the danger of external conquest, state by state.
How then was this proper Constitutional federalist separation to be sustained? Precisely the same way it had been laid out from the beginning. I restate what I said earlier in this letter:
"But how exactly are the states rights, state government powers-authority, that are ‘reserved to the States respectively, or to the people’ by the 10th Amendment implemented? Is there a single simple mechanism for achieving this? The answer lies in what caused the separation of power between state and federal governments to be dissolved."
For those with ears to hear, it is not enough for a State to reaffirm its 10th Amendment rights, and not have in place the "lost" mechanism, the "teeth" to exercise them. These "teeth" are to be found in the same place they ever were, that which was lost by the 17th Amendment, that in turn caused the proper federalist separation to be dissolved.
Article 1 Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof
Seventeenth Amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state.
The Founders had assigned the Senate the responsibility of representing the states as sovereign entities. This is why Senators at the federal level were appointed by the state legislatures rather than being elected directly by the people of the state. It was so that Senators would not be compelled to involve themselves in the popular issues of the day (always at the task of hearing "the voice of the people" in order to win re-election), but could concentrate primarily on the protection of states' rights from the encroachments of the National government. Their primary assignment was one of balancing the budget, keeping taxes as low as possible, tempering the radicalism of the House, and serving as the "elder statesmen" of the Congress. Despite the Founders' intentions, all of this was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment. In effect, this made both the Senate and the House a reflection of the popular will, both to be violently tugged and tossed by the less-informed populace for their re-election survival. So they would become less in touch with the sovereign interests of the states (which were distilled into their purest form in the state legislatures), or the checks and balances which the states were to have provided through their Senators.
It was understood, and still remains true, that the state legislatures would most certainly be more informed of all the concerns and interests of all the counties in their respective states than would the populace directly. Thus they would be in a much more enlightened position to appoint these "ambassadors of the state" to wholly represent the state as a state check upon a less informed House of Representatives at the federal level, and the wholly national nature of the Executive. This was the federalism of the Founders. The nature of the appointing of Senators was a vital element in the Federalist system. In fact, it was so vital that James Madison had this to say about it in The Federalist Papers no.39:
"The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the states, and in this respect the government is federal, not national." Another way of putting it is, "If the Senate does not derive its powers and authority directly from the appointment by the state legislature, then this system is in no way a federalist one." Yet another way of putting it is, "If this system of federalism is not upheld in this manner, we will eventually have no separation of powers between the state governments and the national government." Or, as Jefferson put it, we will wander into a miasma of boundless power-grabbing Federal government law, unanchored by any Constitutional basis:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." To President George Washington, opinion against the constitutionality of a national bank, 15 February 1791
It is of no coincidence that in 1913, once this vital mechanism of this system of federalism was stripped by the 17th Amendment, immediately thereafter, in the same year, the most egregious encroachments of the national government into the realm of state government authority occurred. Those being the Federal Reserve, and the national income tax with it Cerberus, the IRS.
Here is the full quote from Fisher Ames:
"The state governments are essential parts of the system.... The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.... They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states, and it will not be denied that some permanency in their office is necessary to a discharge of their duty. Now, if they were chosen yearly, how could they perform their trust? If they would be brought by that means more immediately under the influence of the people, then they will represent the state legislatures less, and become the representatives of individuals. This belongs to the other house. The absurdity of this, and its repugnancy to the federal principles of the Constitution, will appear more fully, by supposing that they are to be chosen by the people at large. If there is any force in the objection to this article, this would be proper. But whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests, of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights." _____________________________________________ A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, designed to repeal the 17th Amendment, follows: SECTION ONE. The Seventeenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
SECTION TWO. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, selected by the legislature of each State. Each Senator shall serve a six year term and may be reappointed. Each Senator shall have one vote.
SECTION THREE. Among the duties of each Senator is the primary duty to represent the government of their State, and in particular, their State’s Legislature, in the Senate. For the purpose of maintaining communications with its Senators, each State Legislature shall establish a liaison committee and shall specify the duties, procedures, and method of appointment of that committee. This committee shall work with its United States Senators in evaluating the impact of federal legislation on their State. All legislation proposed by Congress, and all treaties proposed, shall be submitted to each State’s liaison committee.
SECTION FOUR. Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature. Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature.
SECTION FIVE. Congress is precluded from enacting any legislation affecting the senatorial selection process. Each State Legislature shall enact rules and procedures, consistent with this amendment, related to the selection and removal of Senators.
SECTION SIX. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures. |
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to ..
2009-06-27 22:28:06
|
|
|
| john_lyon56 |
|
| Activist |
 |
Joined: 2008-11-16 18:29:05
Posts: 28
Location: Glendale, AZ |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
Great post. I'm fully on board in favor of repeal of the 17th Amendment.
John Lyon
[mgall777 2009-06-24 03:18:38]: I don't know, am I crazy? someone want to give guidance or correction to this? what I am posting below I've sent out to the entire state legislature of Maine. I've had buffoonish Maine "state sovereignty CHAMPIONS" fighting me about this. they won't even discuss it, won't look it in the eyes. mgall777 www.tenthamendmentextremist.org_____________________________________________________________________ ... It is of no coincidence that in 1913, once this vital mechanism of this system of federalism was stripped by the 17th Amendment, immediately thereafter, in the same year, the most egregious encroachments of the national government into the realm of state government authority occurred. Those being the Federal Reserve, and the national income tax with it Cerberus, the IRS. ... _____________________________________________
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
Last Edited On: 2009-06-27 22:28:06 By john_lyon56 for the Reason Direct quotation was too long |
|
Truth is treason in the empire of lies--Ron Paul |
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to ..
2009-06-25 04:01:04
|
|
|
| m1super90 |
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-07-27 16:38:50
Posts: 3
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
The 17th is the most damanging of them all. It nearly fully removes states' voices from the federal government. With every state now abdicating it's responsibility to appoint electors for president, they are totally removed. Literally, where are the states to be heard? They have to pass local resolutions and thrown them into the air just to invoke the 10th amendment. |
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to ..
2009-06-25 11:08:02
|
|
|
| mgall777 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-07-05 16:41:12
Posts: 14
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
"It is of no coincidence that in 1913, once this vital mechanism of this system of federalism was stripped by the 17th Amendment, immediately thereafter, in the same year, the most egregious encroachments of the national government into the realm of state government authority occurred. Those being the Federal Reserve, and the national income tax with it Cerberus, the IRS. "
Alright, I'm not sure if this is the order it all happened in, now that I've done more reading on it. But it all happened at the same time. The 17th amendment was the lid on the Federal pandora's box that started the COMPLETE undoing of the separation of state and federal powers.
There's a lot of hoopla about state 10th amendment resolutions, but it amounts to nothing in the end without the removal of the 17th. so my question for any one who can answer is....WHAT DOES A STATE LEGISLATURE DO ON ITS OWN ABOUT THE 17TH AMENDMENT? DO THEY START ALSO WITH A RESOLUTION, AS THEY ARE DOING IN RE-AFFIRMING THEIR TENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS? |
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to ..
2009-06-26 05:01:53
|
|
|
| rentacop1976 |
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-09-29 13:48:07
Posts: 5
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
First, be very careful when you talk about repealing amendments to the Constitution. We all know that would require a Con-Con, and once a Con-Con is agreed to, the entire Constitution is (theoretically, at least) up for grabs. It brings to mind the classic "be careful what you ask for."
Second, the only thing the 17th amendment did was allow the people of the states to decide who they want representing them in the Senate. Why is that such a bad thing? The balance of power (the checks and balances we have always been concerned about) is not just between the different branches of the government, nor just between the state and federal governments, but also with the people. That is specifically stated in the 10th amendment. Powers not granted to the federal government are relegated either to the states or the people. Don't forget: states are made up of people. The human element is inescapable. For that reason, I don't agree that it is necessary to repeal the 17th amendment. I don't believe the 17th amendment repeals - or even does much to counter - the 10th amendment.
I know there will be many here who will be quick to remind me that we live in a republic, not a democracy. I know that. I also know why. But I also know that this republic does embrace some democratic principles. It might be accurate to say we live in a democratic republic. In a democracy, 51% (the majority) can take away the rights of the other 49% (the minority). On the other hand, a republic makes it possible for the minority (in this case, the small wealthy elite) to take away the rights of the majority. In a very real sense, that is precisely what is happening now. That is why I strongly feel the 17th amendment needs to stay put. It's good that we have a republic, but some democratic principles are necessary in order to protect the rights of everyone. Don't forget, the Soviet Union was also a republic, as is China. Where is the balance of power there?
I agree that a balance of power is essential to protect the rights of everyone. The sole duty of a government is to protect the rights that we have always had (remember, "we hold these truths to be self-evident...). But don't forget that a government is simply a group of people with authority over other people. Also remember that the American system of government was founded on the premise of the consent of the governed. So when we are discussing a proper balance of power, it's important to remember that the people must be included in that balance. |
|
IP Logged
|
|
Last Edited On: 2009-06-26 05:01:53 By rentacop1976 for the Reason |
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to ..
2009-06-27 09:27:43
|
|
|
| m1super90 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-07-27 16:38:50
Posts: 3
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
Labels are difficult to use across different people with consistent meaning. I consider our original House-Senate makeup to be a combination of majority rule democracy and of representative republicanism. Some may call this a democratic republic. Whatever the label, it's the best system in history when it comes to balance between popular passionate will and inalienable individual rights.
What you say is correct, there is a possibility of rule by an elite class in a pure republic. Just as there is the danger of mob rule in a pure democracy. The option, other than a monarch, is to have one, the other, both, or none. Or, democracy, republic, democratic republic, or anarchy. Bringing the US Senate close to the people, as the House, renders it superfluous. The federalist papers are replete with arguments urging ratification of the new constitution based solely on the fact that US Senators would be appointed by state legislatures. The US Constitution would not have been ratified otherwise.
I, for one, have greater faith in the clarity of thought of the founders, than today's revisionists. They took years to carefully explore, examine, debate, and discuss, in painful detail, how the new government should be formed, and why. By contrast, today's decisions are rushed through in order to prevent through examination.
Without the US Senate the states have no legislative power in the federal government which they created. This is analogous to buying a home with a home owners' association, but not having a right to speak or to vote in the association. This is not the proper way of joining a community while safeguarding the rights of the individual. With regards to Congress, it is the states, represented by their legislatures, joining a union whilst safeguarding their rights as the sovereign bodies. Typically, this would be the end of it, but, the founders saw fit to add a democratic aspect to this via the House.
If it weren't for the fact that state legislatures are directly elected by the people, I would prefer that all laws passed out of the House be approved by state legislatures directly. However, being directly elected, again, state legislators voting on bills passed out of the house would be superfluous.
If/when we have world government, you can bet it will be "democratic". You can also bet that the rest of the world will "outvote" the US to legally plunder our wealth. We're seeing this today on a smaller scale with our federal system. |
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH ..
2009-06-27 15:44:22
|
|
|
| mgall777 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-07-05 16:41:12
Posts: 14
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
[rentacop1976 2009-06-26 04:01:53]: First, be very careful when you talk about repealing amendments to the Constitution. We all know that would require a Con-Con, and once a Con-Con is agreed to, the entire Constitution is (theoretically, at least) up for grabs. It brings to mind the classic "be careful what you ask for."
with all due respect....this argument has grown weary. folks are running scared of shadows. don't do this because con-con. don't say that because con-con. I'm doing this and I'm saying this, and will continue to do and say and write it.
Second, the only thing the 17th amendment did was allow the people of the states to decide who they want representing them in the Senate. Why is that such a bad thing?
you didn't read my initial post. read it, I can't run through the whole thing again. I am perfectly willing to discuss it, but its like having a conversation with someone who is only replying to themselves. read it, I'll wait...
...listen, I've read the rest of what you wrote. I can't respond to you unless you're actually responding to me. I'll wait...
So when we are discussing a proper balance of power, it's important to remember that the people must be included in that balance. yes, the people are included. in the system of federalism they are included IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. read what I wrote, read what they wrote. they did not set up a system to have TWO HOUSES OF THE PEOPLE, which is what we have now. THE uninformed people listen to the national demagogues, and vote for the national demagogery that suits them to be implemented at the national level in both houses. the matter at hand is there is no STATE VOICE coming from those who understand the STATE'S CONERNS AND INTERESTS, that is....get this....like it or not....best understood by the state legislatures (that are....get this...elected by the people). the people are represented all over the place. the distilled interests of the states ARE NOT. read it, I will wait... |
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH ..
2009-06-27 16:08:55
|
|
|
| mgall777 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-07-05 16:41:12
Posts: 14
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
[m1super90 2009-06-27 08:27:43]: What you say is correct, there is a possibility of rule by an elite class in a pure republic. Just as there is the danger of mob rule in a pure democracy. The option, other than a monarch, is to have one, the other, both, or none. Or, democracy, republic, democratic republic, or anarchy. Bringing the US Senate close to the people, as the House, renders it superfluous.
precisely, the key word here is "superfluous." you have full blown democracy in this case. read Federalist no.39 and you see that it is not just a matter of repealing the 17th amendement. but the Founders had very very very sound reasoning for their system of electing the president via state legislature appointed electors. but I'm not going that far. what I'm saying is all these 10th amendment resolutions in the end mean nothing unless the state legislatures HAVE BACK THEIR TEETH TO BITE THE FEDERAL HAND. those teeth, then and now, was and is the senators they appointed as their watchdogs and ambassadors. we don't have that now, and won't until the 17th is shot dead.
The federalist papers are replete with arguments urging ratification of the new constitution based solely on the fact that US Senators would be appointed by state legislatures. The US Constitution would not have been ratified otherwise.
again, dead on. "the constitution would NOT HAVE BEEN RATIFIED."
I, for one, have greater faith in the clarity of thought of the founders, than today's revisionists.
even more to the point, I have greater faith in the Founders, that very poorly informed populace electing every branch of government. WHO THE HELL CHECKS THE POORLY INFORMED POPULACE? people that argue with me against this are arguing for full blown democracy and don't even realize it.
With regards to Congress, it is the states, represented by their legislatures, joining a union whilst safeguarding their rights as the sovereign bodies. Typically, this would be the end of it, but, the founders saw fit to add a democratic aspect to this via the House.
preaching to a well in tune choir member here. damn good choir, that includes most of the founders (sans hamilton, no matter what he says otherwise).
If it weren't for the fact that state legislatures are directly elected by the people, I would prefer that all laws passed out of the House be approved by state legislatures directly. However, being directly elected, again, state legislators voting on bills passed out of the house would be superfluous.
the point that everyone misses here is the state legislatures actually do know most intimately their communities better than anyone. though they are elected by the populace directly, they still have a very direct stake in their communities. also, they are very close and accessible by potentially armed citizens. you know what I mean, there is a proximate fear involved, as opposed to the distant DC. it is the duty of the state legislature to see to it that their appointed senators act in a manner that represents the said legislature, and so the people that elected the said legislature. would it not be a considerable improvement if state legislatures could again recall their appointed lsenators (and they did in extreme cases)?
my question to this writer is....do you see a need for those states who have already passed 10th amendment resolutions, to follow it up with a resolution to repeal the 17th? I most emphatically do, or else these efforts turn out to be toothless. |
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to ..
2009-06-27 23:01:40
|
|
|
| john_lyon56 |
|
|
| Activist |
|
Joined: 2008-11-16 18:29:05
Posts: 28
Location: Glendale, AZ |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan during the 1980 presidential debates, if you are happy with the performance of the Congress since passage of the 17th Amendment, then you should support its continuation. On the other hand, if you feel that Congress has done a VERY poor overall job since 1913, maybe it's time for a change.
It is an open secret that influence in Congress is for sale through campaign contributions. If senators were appointed by state legislatures, lobbyists would not be able directly to bribe senators, they would have to bribe state legislators, who could then put pressure on the senators. That would still be an imperfect system, but it would be a great improvement over what we have now, in my view.
John Lyon |
|
IP Logged
|
|
Last Edited On: 2009-06-27 23:01:40 By john_lyon56 for the Reason Typo |
|
Truth is treason in the empire of lies--Ron Paul |
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to ..
2009-07-06 05:30:05
|
|
|
| 1300MilesToFreedom |
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2009-07-04 20:24:37
Posts: 2
Location: Mesa Arizona |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
Amendment of the constitution does not require a constitutional convention. The fifth article lists two ways in which the constitution can be amended.
The 17th amendment does need to be repealed as it would take power away from lobbyists. |
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to ..
2009-07-24 15:25:51
|
|
|
| Bliss Tew |
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-08-12 10:09:54
Posts: 7
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
An amendment, that is a properly ratified Amendment and thus part of the Constitution, may be repealed by an Amendment. We saw such was the case when the 21st Amendment was passed to repeal the 18th Amendment. That process did not require a Constitutional Amendment. A Congressman simply sponsored an Amendment to repeal the 18th in the Congress, it passed both houses, and then went on to be approved by 3/4s of the States' in convention. (Not Legislatures).
So we needn't risk a Constitutional Convention to restore what once was the method of electing U.S. Senators by State Legislatures. We need only to convince a Congressman to file a bill to amend the Constitution by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, get that passed by the House and the Senate, and then ratified either by 3/4s of the State Legislatures, or by 3/4s of the States' conventions if Congress decides that would be the method of ratification. (See Article V). Or, there may be another way around the Seventeenth Amendment.
Does an amendment to the Constitution that was not properly ratified have any force? Is an amendment that is not properly ratified even an amendment?
Can a proposed Amendment become an amendment if it is not properly ratified, or does it merely remain an unratified proposed Amendment and therefore of still of no force in the Constitution? Is the Seventeenth Amendmendment actually ratified properly according to Article V of the U.S. Constitution?
in 1913, Utah's Legislature did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment, it voted against ratification. The same was true of Deleware, and Rhode Island. Georgia's Legislature wouldn't even vote on the Seventeenth Amendment as it would strip State Governments of their power within the Senate to check the power of the federal government. Six other states' legislatures were not in session during 1913, so none of them voted to ratify or not to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment. That's ten states' legislatures that didn't ratify the Tenth Amendment.
Writer Daniel Marchi brought out another interesting point that should be investigated. he claimed that evidence shows that even the 3/4s of the States needed to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 was not fulfilled. At that time 36 States were required to ratify an amendmnet in order to meet Article V's ratification requirement for a typical amendment. However, at that time, 1913, Ohio, which was counted as one of the 36 ratifying states, was not a State! Therefore, 35 States adn one territory ratified the 17th Amendment, making it an invalid amendment! The story on Ohio is apparently found in Public Law 204 (H.J. Res. 121; August 7, 1953). Thus, if not properly ratified, is it of any force? |
|
IP Logged
|
|
Last Edited On: 2009-07-24 15:25:51 By Bliss Tew for the Reason Added final paragraph |
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any..
2009-07-29 04:14:17
|
|
|
| mgall777 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-07-05 16:41:12
Posts: 14
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :Repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution
I'm really a novice at this, but one thing is clear the more I read about Jefferson and Madison's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798....they understood that for this system of federalism to work, it was incumbent upon, it was even THE DUTY of each state to assist the other states to resist the encroaching and consolidating actions of the national government. I agree with this from m1super90: "They have to pass local resolutions and thrown them into the air just to invoke the 10th amendment. " what I'm saying is that it is THE DUTY of those states who have passed 10th amendment resolutions (7 states have had both houses pass, of which 2 have had the governor sign)...say what you will about Palin, she understands at least this) to rally all the other states to understand and do likewise. that is exactly what Jefferson and Madison did with Kentucky and Virginia, though the response was mainly negative. what I would like to see is people like us contacting the state legislatures of Idaho, Alaska, N.Dakota, S.Dakota, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Oklahoma, and pointing out THEIR DUTY. I am crafting letters along these lines now. if you want to work with me along these lines please contact me.
again though, in the end the resolutions mean nothing with the 17th amendment still in place. but I think if there is a resounding 50 state implementation of 10th amendment resolutions in place, there would be a more receptive ear to the suggestion of a removal of the 17th to make their resolutions actually effective.
7 states have passed resolutions in both state houses, 7 have passed in one house, 21 have a resolution introduced, 3 have rejected and likely will reintroduce (Maine, where I reside, has introduced and tabled, and I am assured will re-introduce). that's 39 states out of 50. nothing from CA, UT, WY, NY, VT, HI, CT, MD, RI, DE, NJ. where do you reside? |
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Just whose job is this anyway?..
2009-07-31 04:21:04
|
|
|
| mgall777 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-07-05 16:41:12
Posts: 14
Location: |
|
|
|
this is something I posted at the Indiana State Sovereignty Resolutions 2010 discussion in the STATE forum, in response to the initial poster. instead of retyping the whole thing, making the same points, I've just copied and pasted. Mike G
"I don't know about giving "teeth" but we liked many reasons for pushing the sovereignty resolutions in our state."
again, I am no expert on this, so if I'm wrong correct me. what I see as the age old problem is this....I recently listened to one of Oklahoma Rep.Key's interviews at tenthamendmentcenter.com (yes, I am aware of them), and he stated essentially that these resolutions are in essence legal cease and desist warnings, and that continuance of federal violation of the 10th amendment will be followed be lawsuits. the problem is ALL of these lawsuits if "successful", wind up in the lap of the Supreme Court. that would be the FEDERAL Supreme Court. the problem remains the same, as it was with Jefferson and Madison, and the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, as is also well spelled out in John Taylor's TYRANNY UNMASKED. if left for the federal anything to draw the line between state and national, well, you know the answer to that. They thought it illogical that when a compact of federalism existed between state governments and a general/national government, how was it then that the NATIONAL court made the decision? the compact was between state and national, and if the state did not have a negative, there was no compact, there was no system of federalism. without a state negative, not a Supreme Court negative, there are no "TEETH" to see to it that the encroachments (or "evils", as Jefferson put it) end. those "teeth" were to be found in the state legislature appointed Senators to the national level. a direct representative of the state legislature was considered such an integral part of the system of federalism, that without it there was no system, only a national consolidated government. nothing changes EVER without the teeth back in place, because then you are still relying on the FEDERAL Supreme Court to "protect" the states. that's a joke (and not funny at all), and people like Rep.Key should know its a joke. the only people I see as of now who understand this are the fine skousen folk over at NCCS.org.
"I'd bet all here agree there is a definite need for all states to reassert their rights. By passing resolutions we draw attention to the issue AND we set precedence. Our General Assembly considers resolutions to have weight and merit and used in dealing with issues in that House. mgall777, you are right. It's not enough to be about a single state. Part of the power was that so many states piled on. The JBS has made it an action item and national effort. So have others. Are you aware of this? As for the follow up responsibility you mentioned for the states that have passed resolutions...boy. I think we need to keep growing the movement! That will take some help."
the real answers seem way too large and impossible for people, and elicit responses like "Boy!" and "Gez!" and "Slow down!" and the likes in the conversations I have all the time. but nonetheless, there stands Goliath, and he's a huge bastard, and he ain't going to get smaller. you can't pick another opponent though, it is what it is. the answer is at the very end the REPEAL OF THE 17TH AMENDMENT. the answer is ALL THE STATES have to stand at the same time, as one side of a two sided compact between state and national governments. all the states will not stand together if each state is solely concerned about their state, and not much else. those state legislatures who understand the 10th amendment, MUST educate those state legislatures that do not. we hired them for one crucial task....to first and foremost be a negative between the state and the national powers. ITS THEIR JOB, NOT MINE, NOT YOURS, NOT THE JBS, NOT THE 10TH AMENDMENT CENTER'S. my job is to gain income for my family, vacuum the floors, cut tha lawn, change the diapers, cook the dinner, homeschool the children. now, I agree that a "national" effort by the JBS would be to encourage state legislatures to adopt a 10th amendment resolution, but that is only a first step. if the JBS is not insisting to these state legislatures that it is THEIR DUTY to awaken the other state legislatures, then it is but a partial effort. read the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, that is what they are all about. states awakening other states, so that all states can stand together against the violating other half of the compact, the national. I don't see where they (we) are doing that particularly. if someone can point that out to me, I'd be grateful. but the more important point is I don't see where state legislatures are doing that. is the state legislature of Indiana writing to the Maine legislature about their 10th amendment resolution? it isn't their job? It is, as co-members of the state side of the federalist compact. "That will take some help" you say? where do you think that is suppose to come from? from them, your Indiana state legislature, that you hired first and foremost to be a negative against the Federal Goliath |
|
IP Logged
|
|
Last Edited On: 2009-07-31 04:21:04 By mgall777 for the Reason |
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and the DUTY OF THE STATE LEGIS..
2009-08-17 11:32:07
|
|
|
| mgall777 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-07-05 16:41:12
Posts: 14
Location: |
|
|
|
Subject :The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and the DUTY OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES
Here's a letter I just sent out to the state legislatures and governors of Alaska, Idaho, Tennessee, Louisiana, Oklahoma, N.Dakota and S.Dakota. these are the 7 states where both houses of their state legislatures have passed 10th amendment resolutions, Alaska and Tennessee having their governors signing it.
Mike G
www.tenthamendmentextremist.org
Precious Member of the Vanguard
"The preservation of liberty must depend on the division of power between the state and the federal (national) government." So wrote John Taylor of Caroline, fellow compatriot of Jefferson and Madison during the time of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. This is the absolute principle you have re-affirmed with your positive vote upon your 10th Amendment Resolutions. This is the very same principle upon which the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were constructed.
The principle is simple, so much so that any 3rd grader could understand it. It is simply this; "Where there is division, complete consolidation cannot exist." This is the simple principle upon which liberty is (re)created, exists, and is "preserved".
It has been correctly stated by Madison and others, that the definition of tyranny is the consolidation of all legislative, judicial, and executive power in one controlling center. That is, the authority (seized or elected to) to write the law unrestrainedly, judge the validity of such law, and the enforcement of these laws as seems fit by the same controlling center. So, the simple principle applied, the dissolution of tyranny occurs with the separation of the legislative, judicial, and executive powers.
But the division of these powers in the then newly established national-federal government, were not the sole and paramount "division" in the minds of Jefferson, Madison, and Taylor, that the "preservation of liberty depends" upon. The first and greatest division that needed to be created and maintained was that between "the state and the national-federal governments." Between, as your 10th Amendment Resolutions spell out, the "reserved" state powers and the "enumerated" national-federal powers.
Let your minds now be single upon your task. The seven states of Alaska, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, Idaho, and Oklahoma, are now at the vanguard of the single most important task of "preserving liberty." It is by means of your 10th Amendment Resolutions being passed by both houses of your state legislatures that you become the elite group of leaders in the "preservation of liberty" in this nation. It is you who have redrawn the battle line that was at first established by the 10th amendment, and soon thereafter fortified by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 by Jefferson and Madison, in opposition to the Adams Administration’s Alien and Sedition Acts.
Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolution:
"7.Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,’ and ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,’ goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to
destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress."
We now know, one hundred and ten years hence, that it is the "general welfare" clause, the "necessary and proper" clause, as well as the "commerce" and "supremacy" clauses, that have been the main tools used by American "progressive" statists to consolidate power away from the states, and toward the national-federal government. That these "revisals and corrections" never came to pass, even though "a time of greater tranquility" came with the defeat of the Federalist Party by Jefferson and Madison’s Republican Party from 1800 on, we bear witness to today. Though the standard was raised again and again, and the battle ensued many times leading up to the War Between the States, we stand here today ensnared in the malconstructions of these clauses.
It is now you, Alaska, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, Idaho, and Oklahoma, who have raised the standard and blown the trumpet. I have seen and heard, and come to do battle. What shall you do as the new leaders of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions?
May I make some suggestions, taken directly from the words of Jefferson and Madison?
MADISON
[3.] That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.
[7.] That the good people of this Commonwealth, having ever felt and continuing to feel the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other States, the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all and the most scrupulous fidelity to that Constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness, the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in confidence that they will concur with this Commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each for co-operating with this State, in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
[8.] That the Governor be desired to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the Executive authority of each of the other States, with a request that the same maybe communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this State in the Congress of the United States.
JEFFERSON
1.
Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes,—delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
8th.
Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in the late federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness, and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness, or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to not submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified….That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens, and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainl. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, (not merely in the cases made federal, casus foederis, but) in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent; that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.
9th.
Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly.
Let me state clearly what it is I am suggesting with my highlighting:
All states are "duty bound to arrest the evil," that is, the national-federal government assuming powers which are not enumerated in the US Constitution, and rightly belong to the very states who created the national-federal government via the Constitution. This "evil" can only be "arrested" by the concord of the state governments standing in opposition to it, and by this alone.
Being now the 7 states of the vanguard in "arresting this evil", it is you who are first and foremost "duty bound" to "appeal to the like dispositions of the other States," just as was the underlying purpose of the resolutions of Kentucky and Virginia in 1798.
In appealing to the other states, it must be expressed "that the necessary and proper measures be taken by each co-operating State, for maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
For this "appeal" to occur, you are duty bound to "transmit a copy of your 10th Amendment Resolutions (with explanation) to the Executive authority of each of the other States, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this State in the Congress of the United States."
It must be made clear in your communication that "to this compact (ratification of the US Constitution) each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party." So it is that they, as you, are duty bound to "arrest the evils" of the national-federal government. The only "parties" of consideration in this compact are the "co-States." The national-federal government is not a fellow "party" to be included in this communication. It is rather the mere creation of the "parties of the compact."
For further emphasis, here are more directives from Jefferson:
"…This commonwealth from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being co-parties with Kentucky to the compact."
"…That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments…declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact…That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution."
"…communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them."
Let it not be heard that the Alien and Sedition Acts have long been put to rest, and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions have no relevance today. Such puerile argument deserves nothing other than a paddling on the bottom, and a "time out" in the room. The Alien and Sedition Acts were the product of deformed malconstructs of the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses. Add to that the centuries’ hideous mutations of the "commerce" and "supremacy" clauses, and the listing of national-federal "evils that need arresting" today would overflow countless dozens of volumes, never mind my simple letter.
I call upon you, Alaska, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, Idaho, and Oklahoma, to fulfill that which you have begun. If not, what then was the purpose of your lifting the 10th amendment standard, and blowing the trumpet of 1798? Do you believe it was for your state alone that the 10th amendment was forged with such angst and blood?
I would very much like to be apprised of your sentiments to my call. But actually, this matter is of concern between your state governments and all the others of the nation, and not to me. I implore you though, at the very least, and perhaps as a token of your appreciation of my letter, to contact Rep. Richard Cebra of the Maine State Legislature (my home state). Mr. Cebra is leading the cause for the re-affirmation of the 10th amendment in the halls of our capitol in Augusta, ME.
|
|
IP Logged
|
|
Last Edited On: 2009-08-17 11:32:07 By mgall777 for the Reason |
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :Re:repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to ..
2009-08-23 19:51:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject :need help with mailing?..
2009-08-28 02:02:42
|
|
|
| mgall777 |
|
|
| Just Arrived |
|
Joined: 2008-07-05 16:41:12
Posts: 14
Location: |
|
|
|
[Fr33dom 2009-08-23 18:51:10]:
mgall777, I am new and just learning. Let me know if you need help with mailing, etc and I'll do what I can. I'm in Maine also, and have been wanting to do something, but didn't know what or how.
Thanks
I'm not that old. I can yet lick a stamp and walk to the mailbox. I'm being sarcastic, yes, but for a reason. I am convinced that most "politicians" are tired of hearing from GROUPS. here's another tact...how about we treat "sleazy politicians" first as human beings, and write to them as INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS? how about we STOP viewing all our "REPRESENTATIVES" as being the prototypical "politician", and write to them as INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS? I'm not writng that to be unnecessarily argumentative. here's why I write it...in the state of Maine there is a group that is allegedly "working" on the state sovereignty / 10th amendment issue. a 10th amendment resolution has been submitted in our capitol government halls a total of ONCE, by a decent human being, Rep.Rich Cebra, who happens also to be a "representative". the resolution was immediately tabled by the democrat socialists. end of story? according to the group allegedly working on the state sovereignty / 10th amendment issue, yes it is the end of the story, and now it is time to begin a Citizen's Initiative. that seem OK with you, as a Maine resident, or anyone else reading this? It is not OK with me. this is yet a representative republic, and not a democracy. there is a hideous mentality in this nation, and particularly this state. the mentality says "I will defend this republic until it gets 'tough', then I will pretend that it is a full blown democracy and seize the matter into the 'people's hands'." I spent some consiiderable amount of time with this group, and apparently the ONCE is enough, because their "representatives" are all "sleazy politicians." I would suggest to you Fr33dom, that you as an individual human being and resident of Maine write to your REPRESENTATIVES as individual human beings. I am new to this 10th amendment matter myself, but I can help you word YOUR letter to YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES. do you hear what I'm saying folks? I get contacted all the time with "how can I help you" emails, as though I am some powerful washington think tank funded organization. don't worry about helping me, or any other GROUP. IT IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN ABOUT YOU, AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING, AND WRITING TO YOUR INDIVIDUAL HUMAN REPRESENTATIVES. thousands and thousand and thousands of these efforts have much more meaning and effect than any group ever will. stop writing to your representatives as a member as a group. stop the socialist group think mentality by yourself, NOW, by writing as an individual human. now is the time with this 10th amendment line in the sand for each and every one of you to do this precisely in precisely this way...TO YOUR STATE STATE STATE REPRESENTATIVES. as the Jefferson Virginia Resolution and the Madison Kentucky Resolution spells out, it is the STATE LEGISLATURES alone that can re-establish a system of federalism, put an end to the consolidation and centralization of power. the only people who will save the Republic are your state representatives. take it to heart. take what I am saying very very seriously. |
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
|
|
