Feb 2013 AD
The
17th Amendment
is
Unconstitutional
It may sound strange to you for someone to say that an Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional.
How can that be?
Most people, upon any amount of
reflection, would insist upon saying that a Constitutional Amendment is
an integral part of the Constitution and so has to be constitutional.
And, they would be right in every instance -- save one -- in regards to the 17th Amendment.
The 17th Amendment is the ONE AND ONLY possible unconstitutional amendment anyone could possibly make.
Any
other amendment even on proposed by the most radical communist
anarchist or the most Hiltlerian dictator would be constitutional if
ratified properly.
You see, the one thing our
Founding States feared the most, and because of that, absolutely forbid to be Amended in the Constitution was for
their State to lose its representation in the Federal government's Senate.
Constitution of the United States Article V
The Congress,
whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or,
on the Application of the Legislatures
of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which,
in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes,
as Part of this Constitution,
when ratified by the Legislatures
of three fourths of the several States,
or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that
no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
and that
no State,
without its Consent,
shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
And yet it happened anyway.
The Progressives first proposed the Constitution-killing 17th Amendment on May 13, 1912 and passed it on April 8, 1913.
After April 8, 1913, the States had blindly totally cut
themselves out of the Federal Government which they had created -- the
STATES no longer controlled the Senate of the UNITED STATES.
However, it is hard to fathom why they would do such a thing,
since in the 1789 Constitutional Convention, all 13 original States had
agreed that the States running the United States Senate was a
fundamental foundation of the Federal Government they were creating.
Even harder to fathom was the States kicking all States out of
the Senate since the original 13 States had said that -- when in the
act of amending the Constitution -- an Amendment kicking any State out
of the Senate without its consent was the one and only absolutely
forbidden amendment.
We had a hundred million people back then. Someone had to have pointed this out!
Where were our Constitutional scholars. Surely this does not take great debates about original intent.
How could the States have moved from an absolute certainty that
the most vital and critical part of the Constitution was all the States
being equally in control of the Senate, to an absolute certainty that
there was absolutely no need for any of the States to run the Senate
and that none of the States should even be in the Senate at all?
The States surely knew that they had an immense veto power
over all international treaties, veto power over all cabinet
appointments, veto power over all judicial appointments, veto power
over all laws proposed by the House, and they and they alone had the
sole power to decide all impeachments.
Greed was the cornerstone of the Constitution's Checks and
Balances, and so how could the States have been talked into giving up
their awesome powers, by greedily keeping this awesome power in their
own hands?
How could the States have been talked into committing suicide?
Whereas, it took the States over 2 years for the Bill of Rights to be
passed, adding to the Constitution, and protecting the individual
rights of citizens;
Whereas, it took the States more than 2 years to add to the
Constitution in order to specifically protect the rights of blacks with
14th Amendment;
It only took less than 11 months for the States to change a critical
functioning arm of the Constitution -- by giving up their own right to
be represented in the Federal government.
The States gave up this critical cornerstone to the
Constitution, which, they had all specifically debated and all
absolutely agreed upon 100% and had all unwaveringly agree 100% shall
NEVER be changed by an Amendment.
The States must have done this with a federal gun to their head is all I can think of to explain it all!!!
All the original States joined to write the Constitution and to allow it to be amended, with this one vital exception.
No Amendment to the Constitution can write a State involuntarily out of the United States Senate.
The following seven States have never ratified the Seventeenth Amendment:
- Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
- Florida
- Georgia
- Mississippi
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- Virginia
Since these seven States have never given their consent to
lose their power to appoint Senators to represent their State, they
cannot be forced to have direct elections for Senator.
Utah even added the extra protection of outright rejecting the
Amendment, letting one and all know, that the State of Utah has not
consented into being deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate.
By explicitly rejecting the Amendment, no one can say that Utah has implicitly given their consent by silence on the subject.
Now this is all undisputable as it is all straight out of the Constitution.
Constitution STILL says that States
cannot be forced out of the Senate
What
would be interesting is to note that, EVEN AFTER the 17th Amendment was
enacted, Article V of the Constitution STILL states that States have to
consent to being deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate.
The Constitution STILL states in Article V that you cannot
kick States out of the Senate if they don't want to be kicked out and
you STILL cannot do this even with a Constitutional Amendment.
What if a new State legislature, from one of the States who
consented in the writing of the 17th Amendment from those older
Progressive legislature of that State, changes its mind and now does
not consent to losing its equal suffrage in the United States Senate?
Founding Legislatures vs. the 1913 legislatures
What
if today's legislature states that their State's original legislature
joined the United States with this prohibition to remove their State
from the U.S. Senate, and that a legislature elected in 1913 does not
speak for them?
What if they state that they now agree with the Founding State legislature?
What if they say they do not care what a brainwashed Progressive State
legislature believed 100 years ago, as the only things which really
count is
A) How they feel now, AND
B) 200 years ago when the Constitution was set up by all the States, AND
C) When their State applied to join the Union with their 2 Senators.
D) Not 1912-13 when their State were brainwashed by Progressives!
What part of the Constitution holds sway?
Does the 17th Amendment forever give automatic consent of each State
who ratified it, to NOT have a voice in the Senate, until such time as
the 17th is repealed.
OR
Does the part of the Constitution which STILL says that even
3/4's of the States cannot agree in an Amendment to the Constitution to
remove any State's right to have a voice in the Senate, at any time
they remove their consent?
Argument for the 17th to be Unconstitutional
The mind of every State is the State's legislature; therefore,
it would have been the State's legislature who gave and revoked consent
to be represented in the United States Senate.
If a State were to consent to not appoint a Senator for say a
6 month term, after the current Senator had died in office, that would
have been their legal right to do under the Constitution. But no other
power could force them to do so.
But it is clearly established law that one legislature cannot
commit another legislature to their laws or budgets. For instance, a
Democrat legislature cannot spend with abandon and sign contracts to
spend into the next legislative session, just because they know
Republicans have beaten them in the elections and will be taking
control the following year. The new Republican legislature is not bound
by the decisions of the old Democrat legislature, and vice-verse.
Both legislatures have a mind to agree or disagree -- to consent or to not consent.
In regards to the 17th Amendment, the Progressive State
legislators gave their consent that they no longer wanted to be
represented in the U.S. Senate, AND because it is a "so-called"
Constitutional Amendment, have FORCED all subsequent State legislatures
to also give their consent.
Clearly, the 17th Amendment granting consent can only be valid for the State legislative session who ratified it.
For subsequent legislatures -- this is NOT consent -- it is coercion!
With the wording of the Constitution stating that a State can
never be forced to give consent to lose their representation in the
Senate under any circumstance, along with traditional legislative right
of decision-making, then the 17th Amendment cannot possibly be
Constitutional today.
It is undisputable that the 17th Amendment is null and void in
7 States, if not in all of the 50 States who decide to remove their
consent by a mere vote in their State legislatures.
SOURCE:
Stanislav Mishin of joemiller.us
Article located at:
http://www.thechristiansolution.com/doc2013/572_Illegal17th.html
