A Magic Bullet to Kill the 17th Amendment.

January 9, 2010 by admin 

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 two 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.

The concept of federalism 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 for the 10th amendment and 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 or more that failed to do so. These were 10 that failed to “consent” 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 one of those states declares the 17th invalid, based on what I have pointed out here, any other 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 through an article 5 challenge, 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. These judges would also have a conflict of interest for which there is no resolution. They would be more reluctant to decide in favor of an article V challenge due to the fact they would be “deciding” themselves off the bench and out of a job.

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. My next paragraph explains why.

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 nearly 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 more easily demonstrated to the people of just 1 state 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

Article originally posted HERE

Filed under: Learn |
Tagged: , , ,

Statement on Senate Floor about Repealing the 17th Amendment

January 9, 2010 by admin 

Floor Statement on Repealing the 17th Amendment Remarks as Prepared for Delivery on the Senate floor U.S. Senator Zell Miller April 28, 2004
We live in perilous times. The Leader of the Free World’s power has become so neutered he cannot, even with the support of a majority of the Senate, appoint highly qualified individuals endorsed by the American Bar to a federal court.
He cannot conduct a war without being torn to shreds by partisans with their eyes set not on the defeat of our enemy but on the defeat of our President.
The U.S. Senate has become just one big, bad, ongoing joke, held hostage by special interests and so impotent an eighteen wheeler truck loaded with Viagra would do no good.
Andrew Young, one of America’s most thoughtful men, recently took a long and serious look at a U.S. Senate race and after visiting Washington concluded that the Senate is composed of:
“A bunch of pompous old (folks) listening to people read statements they didn’t even write and probably don’t believe.”
The House of Representatives, theoretically the closest of all the federal government to the people, cannot restrain its extravagant spending nor limit our spiraling debt.
And incumbents are so entrenched you might as well call off 80% of the House races. There are no contests.
Most of the laws of our land — at least, the most important and lasting ones — are made not by elected representatives of the people, but by unelected, unaccountable ‘legislators’ in black robes who churn out volumes of case law and who hold their jobs for life.
A half-dozen dirty bombs the size of a small suitcase planted around the country could bring this nation to its knees at any time. And yet we can’t even build a fence along our border to keep out illegals because some nutty environmentalists say it will cause erosion.
This government is in one helluva mess, and frankly my dear, very few up here give a damn.
It’s not funny. It’s sad. It’s tragic and it can only get worse. Much worse. What this government needs is one of those extreme makeovers they have on television, and I’m not referring to some minor nose job or a little botox here and there.
Congressional Quarterly recently devoted an issue to the “Mandate Wars” with headlines blaring, “Unfunded Mandates Add to Woes, States Say,”’”Localities Get the Bill for Beefed-Up Security,”’”Transportation Money Comes With Strings,”’and‘”Medicaid Stuck in Funding Squabbles.”’ Etcetera. Etcetera.
One would think that the much heralded “Unfunded Mandate Reform Act” of 1995’never passed. The National Conference of State Legislatures has set the unfunded mandate figure for the states at $33 billion for 2005. This, along with the budget problems they’ve been having for the last few years, has put states under the heel of a distant and unresponsive government. That’s us!
And it gives the enthusiastic tax-raisers at the state level the very excuse they’re looking for to dig deeper and deeper into the pockets of their taxpayers.
It’s not a pretty picture. And no matter who you send to Washington — for the most part smart and decent people — it is not going to change much. The individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a republic.
It is the system that stinks. And it’s only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists. Perhaps then the answer is a return to the original thinking of those wisest of all men, and how they intended for this government to function.
Federalism, for all practical purposes, has become to this generation of leaders some vague philosophy of the past that is dead, dead, dead. It isn’t even on life support. That line on the monitor went flat sometime ago.
You see, the reformers of the early 1900’s killed it dead and cremated the body when they allowed for the direct election of U.S. senators. Up until then, U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures, as Madison and Hamilton had so carefully crafted.
Direct elections of senators, as good as that sounds, allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it’s filling judicial vacancies or issuing regulations. The state governments aided in their own collective suicide by going along with the popular fad of the time.
Oh, today, it’s heresy to even think about changing the system.
But can you imagine those dreadful unfunded mandates being put on the states or a homeland security bill being torpedoed by the unions if U.S. senators were still chosen by and responsible to the state legislatures?
Make no mistake about it. It is the special interest groups and their fundraising power that elect U.S. senators and then hold them in bondage forever. In the past five election cycles, senators have raised over $1.5 billion for their election contests, not counting all the soft money spent on their behalf in other ways. Few would believe it, but the daily business of the Senate is actually scheduled around fund raising.
The 17th Amendment was the death of the careful balance between state and federal governments. As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other.
The election of U.S. senators by the state legislatures was the linchpin that guaranteed the interests of the states would be protected.
Today, state governments have to stand in line. They are just another one of many, many special interests that try to get senators to listen to them. And they are at an extreme disadvantage because they have no PAC.
The great historian, Edward Gibbons, said of the decline of the Roman Empire, “”The fine theory of a republic insensibly vanished.”
That is exactly what happened in 1913 when the state legislatures, except for Utah and Delaware, rushed pell-mell to ratify the popular 17th Amendment and, by doing so, slashed their own throats and destroyed federalism forever. It was a victory for special interest tyranny and a blow to the power of state governments that would cripple them forever.
And so, instead of senators who thoughtfully make up their own minds, as they did during the Senate’s greatest era of Clay, Webster and Calhoun, we now have many senators who are mere cat’s paws for the special interests. It is the Senate’s sorriest time in its long, checkered and once-glorious history.
So, having now jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality, before I hit the water and go splat,’ I have introduced a bill that would repeal the 17th Amendment. I use the word would,’not will, because I know it doesn’t stand a chance of getting even a single co-sponsor, much less a single vote beyond my own.
Abraham Lincoln, as a young man, made a speech in Springfield, Illinois, in which he called our founding principles “a fortress of strength,” but warned that they ‘would grow more and more dim by the silent artillery of time.’
A wise man, that Lincoln, who understood and predicted all too well the fate of our republic and our form of government. Too bad we didn’t listen to him.

Filed under: Learn |
Tagged: , ,

Benefits of Repealing the 17th Amendment

January 9, 2010 by admin 

Reduced taxation.
As the states take back their rightful powers to govern, there will no longer be a need for the duplicate layers of government the feds put in place to enact their mandates and regulations. Many of the bureaus and Departments of the Federal Government could then be eliminated and the size and costs of the federal Government greatly reduced, as more efficient and responsive local and state Governments, which are already in place, will replace them.

Automatic Campaign finance Reform
When state legislators appoint the U S Senate, there is no need for a candidate to run million dollar campaigns, as there are only a hundred of so state legislators making the decision.
Once selected the Senate no longer favor large pork barrel bills designed to buy votes as we see so common today.

Senators above party bias and media frenzy
It would take both political parties to be appointed in most states, so the new Senators could not afford to play politics as usual, and since they would have to answer to the state legislatures the media would lose much, if not all, of its influence with the senate, just think what that would have done in the recent impeachment procedure, where principle gave way to media pressure, much to the disgust of many in all political persuasions.

Senate will have more time to serve the people
Now a senator spends much of his six years trying to repay, in political favors, those who made substantial contributions to his last campaign. Then looking ahead he spends even more time trying to raise the millions of dollars that it will take to run his next Senatorial campaign. Then of course he spends a great deal of time campaigning to win the vote of the people, being appointed he spend all of his time being a statesman, representing the state legislatures.

No more career Senators
Before the 17th amendment it was rare to have a Senators serve more than a term or two.
But since the 17th amendment a candidate had to appeal to a much larger voter base [the people], which required him to raised massive amounts of money to run that campaign. This placed him in a position to prostate himself to Pac groups, political parties, and special interest groups. Large labor Unions, and sometimes even to foreign countries, anyone willing to give large amounts of money to his campaign.
These special interest groups soon learned the more seniority their Senators
Acquired, the more legislation they could get passed, which gave their legislation preference, so more and more they would return to office those senators who favored their political agendas.

Size and cost of operation of the Federal Government reduced
As state legislatures get back their power to keep the Federal Government under control and as they exercise their right to govern the people, which was stripped away from them by the 17th amendment, the states’ representative (The Senate) will start eliminating those Federally created Bureaus and Departments created to carry out Federal mandates and regulations, which usurp states’ powers

State issues will be settled by the individual states
We see today many issues, which are sectional rather than national, being settled by the national government, rather than being settled by the local and state governments. This causes inequalities in the law favoring some groups at the expense of other groups, some states over other states. With a Senate answering to the state legislatures a state issue will remain a state issue.

The President will have more time to serve the Country
With the return to Constitutional checks and balances and the Federal Government cut back to the issues and responsibilities specified in the Constitution the President will have more time to deal with those responsibilities of the nation and not those personal squabbles he faces so often now.

People will enjoy more voice in Government
When the US Senate is appointed by the state legislatures they are no longer under the influence of the money brokers, but now answers to their new bosses, the state legislators, which are usually one of our neighbors and friends.
When you have a concern for that U S Senator you only need to contact one of your neighbors or friends living in your own county, either a state senator or a state representative and he takes your concern to your U S Senator. Since that state representative appointed your Senator, and there are only a hundred or so state representatives, he will be much more likely to heed your request, than a U S Senators would today where your request would be from just one of his millions of voters

Influence peddling and corruption will be greatly reduced or eliminated.
One of our biggest problems today with the Federal Government as revealed by Senator Zell Miller from Georgia [His article and disclosure on this web site] is the influence peddling and the corruption, which accompanies it. Once the 17th amendment is repealed the Senate will no longer have to run million dollar re-election campaigns so he is removed from much of the alluring temptations of raising millions of dollars. And as the Senate is removed from the temptation of pork-barrel legislation they will clean up the House very quickly by defeating such legislation.
Note that today if you were to try and buy legislation you only need to influence 60 Senators. After the repeal you would have to influence those 60 Senators plus a majority of a hundred or more State legislator of 30 states.

I see a great shift in morality as that Senator knows personally nearly every state legislator that appointed him, and knows they are looking over his shoulder when he votes, he will vote right and morally.

Filed under: Learn |
Tagged: , , ,

What is the 17th Amendment?

January 8, 2010 by admin 

It is an Amendment which made a change to section three, article one of the Constitution, passed in 1913, this changed the selection of the US Senate by the legislatures of each state, to the popular election by the people at large in each state.

Original wording of section # 3 article # 1 is:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, (chosen by the legislatures thereof,) for six years; and each senator shall have one vote.”

The 17th Amendment reads:
“ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof for six years, and each senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.”

You will note the most numerous group mentioned would be the House of representatives, which are more numerous than the Senate as they were designed to represent the people and so a provision was provided that they could only represent a limited number of people and when the population exceeded that limit, that state would be allowed another representative.

This is important in large states where population and geography would make it unlikely people could get the proper representation, with only two representatives. Consider California with its land mass and large population how can two Senators every serve this state properly if they are expected to represent the people at large, even in small states it isn’t likely they will get good representation.

Contrast that with the time before the 17th amendment, when the Senate was selected by the legislatures of each state, even with the numbers that constitute the legislatures of the largest states, the Senator would only be answering to a hundred or so Legislators rather than a million or more people at large.

You will recall the main reasons the founders set up the senate was to give each state regardless of size or population the same voice in the central government, so the large  states did not have more influence in the central government than the small states.

They had the State legislatures from each state appoint their Senators, and they were to represent the states not the people at large which already had their representatives in the House of representatives.

Notice that they did not want the large states to dominate the selection of  their President or vice president so they selected them by an electoral college which was to give each state the same voice in selecting the President, but after the 17th amendment the states lost their power to hold that in place and the electoral college has been changes to favor the larger states. Another reason for the majority of the states to favor the repeal.

Filed under: Learn |
Tagged: , ,

What Problems did the 17th Amendment Create?

January 8, 2010 by admin 

The 17th amendment made a change in the structure of government taking the Senate away from serving the states legislatures, to serving the people at large, one of our founding fathers warned us against this and even predicted what has happened since the passage of the 17th amendment.

“If the state government were excluded from all agency in the national one, and all power drawn from the people at large, (both chambers voted in by the people) the consequence would be that the national government would move in the same direction as the state governments do, and would run into one great current, pursuing the same course without any opposition whatever.”         (John Dickinson)

Since the passage of the 17th amendment we have seen the federal government bloating to a large uncontrollable government, with both the House and the Senate passing large pork-barrel laden bills to buy the votes of the people with nothing to bind them down
Or keep them in check. In short we now have two houses of Congress both serving the people, and no Senate protecting the states from the powerful Fed. Gov.

The Farmers of the Constitution set up a delicate set of checks and balances, separating powers both horizontally and vertically. The 17th amendment destroyed the vertical separation completely, which was the power of the states to protect themselves from the Federal Government, and keeping the federal government in check.

This also reduces the free democratic choice of the selecting the Senate, since money and popularity weigh more heavily now than statesmanship. Those individuals with a radiant personality, proper looks, and the most money, usually win out over those who may be a far more gifted statesman but less gifted with personality, good looks, and money.

Senators like to pass laws, which are popular, and will assure them of being re-elected so when the people elect them, in order to satisfy the people’s demands, they will vote for large entitlements and other programs, which creates a big central government concentrated in Washington.

Listen to the advice of Thomas Jefferson warning against the concentration of powers:
“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”  (Thomas Jefferson)

This coupled, with high costs of running state wide election campaigns, has put the Senators under the influence of those who finance their campaigns, which now has evolved into a situation where much of the money they raise is from special interest groups, labor unions, PAC groups, and other groups outside of their states, even to some foreign nations, which has caused the people to lose most of their influence with their own Senators.

Contrast the conditions of today with the conditions before the passage of the 17th amendment.

The Senate then, like the Senate today, passed laws that pleased those who put them in office, so they passed laws to please the state legislatures who had put them in office, and since the states didn’t want an all powerful government in Washington, they only needed and wanted Washington to take care of disputes between the states and other matters such as foreign affairs and the defense of this nation, things which the states cannot do.

As a result we had a small, less powerful central government, leaving the states in control and with the responsibility of governing the people, as the Constitution provides.

With that system in control those governing the people, the states, counties and cities, were our neighbors who lived next door in our own cities and states, where they could see first hand the needs and desires of the people, not someone who is elected then leaves the state, and spends most of their time in Washington DC  2,000 miles away, and relies on the media and so called opinion polls to decide how to vote.

Once the 17th Amendment was passed the Federal Government started to usurp the powers of the States, by setting up a duplicate layer of Government in the forms of Federal Bureaus, such as BLM, Fish and Wild Life, taking away the power of the states to manage their own lands, Fish and wild life and other resources in the state, and declaring them under Federal jurisdiction.

Which has resulted in the United States, one of the most blessed nations in the world, blessed with an abundant amount of natural resources, now being held over the barrel by Oil producing Countries, which seem to hate us. When with all of our natural resources we should be exporting oil and all kinds of energy, not importing them.

Now when an energy-producing bill comes before the congress it is killed by the influential and wealthy pocket books of lobbyist rather than the will of the people.

Our energy bills will continue to rise until we clean out this corruption in Congress, So will the prices of goods and services, as they all use energy.

Filed under: Learn |
Tagged: , ,

Next Page »