Saturday, February 12, 2011

Why Seventeenth Amendment Can't Be Repealed

Why Seventeenth Amendment Can't Be Repealed; Devvy Kidd

HT: The Ohio Republic

I've only read this once, but plan to sit down with it and go through it much closer. While this article peaks my curiosity, I have seen articles like this before concerning the 17th and 16th that have been proven false. But nonetheless Ms. Kidd's articles are always well written and thoroughly researched so we really need to give it some special attention.

When the First Continental Congress was convened via a resolution of the Congress of the Confederation, one of the first issues discussed on May 29, 1787 [1], was the balance of power for a newly created federal government:

3. Resolved, that the National Legislature out to consist of two branches.

4. Resolved, that the member of the first branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States every _____ for the term of _____; to be of the age of ____years at least and so forth.

5. Resolved, that the members of the second branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by those of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual Legislatures, to be of the age of ____ years at least and so forth.

James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers #45: "The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures." [2] John Jay, co-author of The Federal Papers is quoted: "Jay then informed Governor Clinton that, unlike the Senate, where the two-thirds rule was in force for treaties and impeachment, the lower house had nothing to do with treaties; it represented the people whereas the Senate represented the states--for the Federalists always a significant distinction." [3]

The framers of the Constitution wisely understood the absolute necessity of ensuring we the people would have the right to vote for our representative in Congress, and at the same time because they all jealously guarded freedom and liberty, the states must also have equal representation. We the people would have the ability to remove via the ballot box, miscreants and scoundrels, while the state legislatures could recall their U.S. Senators who acted against the best interests of their state.

The Senate was supposed to be a sort of checks and balances, but that noble concept disappeared when U.S. Senators were then voted into office by special interests and mobs demanding more and more from the people's treasury. [4] The absolute right of the states to equal representation was wiped out when the Seventeenth Amendment was declared ratified on April 8, 1913.

I have been on the Seventeenth Amendment non ratification since the mid '90s. More and more Americans are beginning to fully understand the issue of sovereignty, federal jurisdiction and rights of the states. The long over due states' rights movement is growing at lightening speed. Americans are learning about the Tenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the real meaning of the Welfare Clause and nullification. [5]

However, there are some issues under the legislative authority of the U.S. Senate that can't be resolved by the Tenth Amendment -- or not easily without huge court battles. But, then, again, our corrupt judicial system at the federal level is part of the problem. Federal judges, including U.S. Supreme Court Justices, are beholden to the U.S. Senators who vote to confirm them. Critical duties of the U.S. Senate, besides confirming federal judges: confirming cabinet heads and ratifying trade agreements. Both areas that can and have had a negative impact on the states of the Union over the decades.

Read the whole article here.

1 comment:

John said...

One point of contention i found so far ... the NA documents included for Minnesota are stamped consistent with the official June 1912 ratification date vs the June 1913 date the source article proposes.

Also, MN state resources confirm that the ratification did pass in special ("extra") session in June 1912.