Repeal the 17th Amendment – An Effective Strategy for Real Change in America
Tom Wise December 22, 2014
There are few things that irk me more than watching good people argue over what to do in order to restore our nation to a constitutional republic. Why does this irk me? Mainly, because no matter what is being argued, or who is victorious or not victorious, nothing will change. Nothing!
And why does nothing change even though good people discuss good things? Mainly, because no matter how good the idea, how detailed, or how constitutional, people don't really get involved. Instead, people rely on other "better" people to do things for them. They expect career politicians to suddenly do an about-face and act as if they have original fire. They expect the media to "see the light" and begin to give a fair shake to all sides. But this will never happen, and that is the fact.
So why do people rely on "better" people who will never do as they ought? Basically, people don't have enough confidence to do it themselves. Oh, you may hear that someone hasn't enough time, or intellect, or education, but all that equates to low confidence. So it is left to those who have been elected, appointed, or born into position to benefit the "little guy" with big wide eyes.
This is why we have elections. The official elected is supposed to be on the side of the voters who brought them to the dance. But often this is not the case. The representative votes "conscience" rather than constituency. If this happens in the House of Representatives, the people can change their minds over the course of a brief two years. But if this happens in the Senate, the people must wait six years. Six.. long.. years. That's longer than a Presidential term!
When the Constitution was fashioned, every Senator was controlled by a State legislature. If the Senator did not vote the way the State legislature wanted, the Senator might be recalled, and a new Senator installed. In this way, the States controlled the Senate. The people, by virtue of having greater access to their State legislators, also had more impact on Senators than they presently do.
The States therefore controlled the way Senators voted. How important is this?
Bills originate in the House, but are verified in the Senate. This gives the people origination rights, and States verification rights, making a very nice marriage. Let's say the President vetoes such a bill. A Senate controlled by the States is much more likely to override a Presidential veto. Think about that! We have "gridlock" in Congress due to the whims of Senators, who are federal officials, not due to whims of the States. We are ruled by kings, not legislatures! Override power reduces gridlock and eliminates such kings.
If a Senator should not cooperate with the wishes of a State, that Senator is only going to get one such whimsy before being recalled. Think about that! States controlling their own destinies, and the path the United States takes!
And if a President, called, say, Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, acted in an unconstitutional manner, impeachment is not controlled by the kings of Washington DC, but by the States, through the Senators, provided of course the House originates such impeachment.
The same goes for the Supreme Court, or any other federal judge. The Senate can impeach in exactly the same manner!
But the 17th Amendment to the Constitution changed all that. Rather than Senators being controlled by the States, they were thereafter elected by the people, and the States lost their power over Senators! Why on Earth would the States vote for such an Amendment to the Constitution? I really have no idea, but I do know it occurred in the Wilsonian era, right after the 16th Amendment was ratified! Talk about Communists taking over!
Read this article to learn more about the circumstances, and other nauseating things.
Hear now my list of demands!
Repeal the 17th Amendment, and send the power of the Senate back to the States. This will put the power of the Congress back into the hands of the States, the budget on the right track, enable override of vetoes with greater ease, and promote good government with a more potent threat of impeachments.
OK, now let me tell you why this is not going to happen:
(1) There must be a type of convention to propose such an Amendment (unless the Amendment is put forward by Congress, see below),
(2) There must be 34 States to sign onto such a convention,
(3) There are massive naysayer movements against any such convention,
(4) There is a public perception that Congress must be involved in the process, and Congress exploits this perception in propaganda,
(5) If a convention is called, the repeal of XVII still has to make the agenda process, and be proposed into a vote agenda,
(6) At least 38 States must agree to ratify such an Amendment.
Obviously, we have ratified 27 Amendments to the Constitution, so it's possible. However, there have been zero State-called conventions, due to misperceptions and propaganda, and just plain State unwillingness. Instead, it has been Congress which has (constitutionally) called all such Amendment conventions.
And why would Congress ever propose to repeal XVII when they enjoy so much power?
And why would States ever propose to repeal XVII when the propaganda is that whoever proposes such thing is a nut?
But read the article I've linked for you. And Google the rest. You will see that repealing XVII is about the simplest and surest way to reduce the growth of the federal government, and to restore power to the States. Of course, the States can invoke Amendment X, but that has been limp also, historically speaking.
I think then the only way to repeal XVII is for conservatives to actively and persistently run for State legislatures, and take over with the intention to restore the United States. Pie in the sky? Yeah.
Are there alternatives?
Well, XVII can't be repealed without a Constitutional amendment. However, there are other things we the people can do. We can demand righteousness by the Constitution. We can vote. We can run for office. We can organize communities with great vigor. We can demand recall of horrid elected officials. We can take over as editors of news organizations. We can nullify laws through certain means.
And though many will say what I propose is foolhardy because "it opens us up to all sorts of communist tricks," my answer is that (1) we already experience communism openly, and (2) if it were that easy for the communists, we'd already be sunk.
I say this nation is conservative at heart, and we need to rise up and make ourselves heard in every way possible!
In closing, I simply ask that you don't attack the messenger (me). The convention to propose and ratify Amendments is in the Constitution, so, yes, it is constitutional. Some say it is not necessary. Others say it's not the right time. Well, when is the right time? Tell me the right time so I can set my watch for it. No, friends, it is always the right time to stand up for constitutional authority and power, to rein in overbearing executive power, to rid ourselves of mealy-mouthed representatives and Senators, and impeach corrupt and elitist judges. I'm not saying repealing XVII will solve all, or even most, of our problems, but I am not backing down from the fact that repealing XVII restores our Constitution.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/repeal-17th-amendment-effective-strategy-real-change-america/
There are few things that irk me more than watching good people argue over what to do in order to restore our nation to a constitutional republic. Why does this irk me? Mainly, because no matter what is being argued, or who is victorious or not victorious, nothing will change. Nothing!
And why does nothing change even though good people discuss good things? Mainly, because no matter how good the idea, how detailed, or how constitutional, people don't really get involved. Instead, people rely on other "better" people to do things for them. They expect career politicians to suddenly do an about-face and act as if they have original fire. They expect the media to "see the light" and begin to give a fair shake to all sides. But this will never happen, and that is the fact.
So why do people rely on "better" people who will never do as they ought? Basically, people don't have enough confidence to do it themselves. Oh, you may hear that someone hasn't enough time, or intellect, or education, but all that equates to low confidence. So it is left to those who have been elected, appointed, or born into position to benefit the "little guy" with big wide eyes.
This is why we have elections. The official elected is supposed to be on the side of the voters who brought them to the dance. But often this is not the case. The representative votes "conscience" rather than constituency. If this happens in the House of Representatives, the people can change their minds over the course of a brief two years. But if this happens in the Senate, the people must wait six years. Six.. long.. years. That's longer than a Presidential term!
When the Constitution was fashioned, every Senator was controlled by a State legislature. If the Senator did not vote the way the State legislature wanted, the Senator might be recalled, and a new Senator installed. In this way, the States controlled the Senate. The people, by virtue of having greater access to their State legislators, also had more impact on Senators than they presently do.
The States therefore controlled the way Senators voted. How important is this?
Bills originate in the House, but are verified in the Senate. This gives the people origination rights, and States verification rights, making a very nice marriage. Let's say the President vetoes such a bill. A Senate controlled by the States is much more likely to override a Presidential veto. Think about that! We have "gridlock" in Congress due to the whims of Senators, who are federal officials, not due to whims of the States. We are ruled by kings, not legislatures! Override power reduces gridlock and eliminates such kings.
If a Senator should not cooperate with the wishes of a State, that Senator is only going to get one such whimsy before being recalled. Think about that! States controlling their own destinies, and the path the United States takes!
And if a President, called, say, Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, acted in an unconstitutional manner, impeachment is not controlled by the kings of Washington DC, but by the States, through the Senators, provided of course the House originates such impeachment.
The same goes for the Supreme Court, or any other federal judge. The Senate can impeach in exactly the same manner!
But the 17th Amendment to the Constitution changed all that. Rather than Senators being controlled by the States, they were thereafter elected by the people, and the States lost their power over Senators! Why on Earth would the States vote for such an Amendment to the Constitution? I really have no idea, but I do know it occurred in the Wilsonian era, right after the 16th Amendment was ratified! Talk about Communists taking over!
Read this article to learn more about the circumstances, and other nauseating things.
Hear now my list of demands!
Repeal the 17th Amendment, and send the power of the Senate back to the States. This will put the power of the Congress back into the hands of the States, the budget on the right track, enable override of vetoes with greater ease, and promote good government with a more potent threat of impeachments.
OK, now let me tell you why this is not going to happen:
(1) There must be a type of convention to propose such an Amendment (unless the Amendment is put forward by Congress, see below),
(2) There must be 34 States to sign onto such a convention,
(3) There are massive naysayer movements against any such convention,
(4) There is a public perception that Congress must be involved in the process, and Congress exploits this perception in propaganda,
(5) If a convention is called, the repeal of XVII still has to make the agenda process, and be proposed into a vote agenda,
(6) At least 38 States must agree to ratify such an Amendment.
Obviously, we have ratified 27 Amendments to the Constitution, so it's possible. However, there have been zero State-called conventions, due to misperceptions and propaganda, and just plain State unwillingness. Instead, it has been Congress which has (constitutionally) called all such Amendment conventions.
And why would Congress ever propose to repeal XVII when they enjoy so much power?
And why would States ever propose to repeal XVII when the propaganda is that whoever proposes such thing is a nut?
But read the article I've linked for you. And Google the rest. You will see that repealing XVII is about the simplest and surest way to reduce the growth of the federal government, and to restore power to the States. Of course, the States can invoke Amendment X, but that has been limp also, historically speaking.
I think then the only way to repeal XVII is for conservatives to actively and persistently run for State legislatures, and take over with the intention to restore the United States. Pie in the sky? Yeah.
Are there alternatives?
Well, XVII can't be repealed without a Constitutional amendment. However, there are other things we the people can do. We can demand righteousness by the Constitution. We can vote. We can run for office. We can organize communities with great vigor. We can demand recall of horrid elected officials. We can take over as editors of news organizations. We can nullify laws through certain means.
And though many will say what I propose is foolhardy because "it opens us up to all sorts of communist tricks," my answer is that (1) we already experience communism openly, and (2) if it were that easy for the communists, we'd already be sunk.
I say this nation is conservative at heart, and we need to rise up and make ourselves heard in every way possible!
In closing, I simply ask that you don't attack the messenger (me). The convention to propose and ratify Amendments is in the Constitution, so, yes, it is constitutional. Some say it is not necessary. Others say it's not the right time. Well, when is the right time? Tell me the right time so I can set my watch for it. No, friends, it is always the right time to stand up for constitutional authority and power, to rein in overbearing executive power, to rid ourselves of mealy-mouthed representatives and Senators, and impeach corrupt and elitist judges. I'm not saying repealing XVII will solve all, or even most, of our problems, but I am not backing down from the fact that repealing XVII restores our Constitution.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/repeal-17th-amendment-effective-strategy-real-change-america/
The 17th Amendment
The 17th Amendment,and the rise of Special Interests
There is another date other than 7 December 1941 that will live in infamy. The other date is 8 April 1913, the date that the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified. On that date the Congress and states changed Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution that required each State Legislature to select two Senators for representation in the United States Senate. The Amendment requires instead that each Senator be elected by popular vote of the people rather than be selected by their respective State Legislators, to wit, “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 16th, 17th, 18th (Prohibition) and 19th (Woman right to vote) Amendments were conceived during the “Progressive” movement that was gaining influence at the time and you will of course recall that the 16th Amendment allowed the Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes. The “Progressive” movement has morphed into the “Liberal” movement of today and these two terms have come to mean that force is required to change people’s actions for the good of all, and Brothers and Sisters, as I have said on many occasions before: Taxes Are Power and the 16th is the single most important enabler of the power requirement that can force change. This Amendment was the legal basis for enacting legislation that began the collection of payroll taxes in 1937 for the Social Security Program. The 16th Amendment eventually enabled Franklin D. Roosevelt to sign into law the Payroll Withholding Tax Act in 1943, another date that infamy should lay claim to. But I digress. The importance of the original Constitutional requirement for Senator selection cannot be overstated because the Article 1, Section 3 requirement was carefully crafted to complement the Bicameral organization of the legislative branch of Government. I really don’t think I command enough of the reader’s respect to provide the reason for this, but perhaps one of the Country’s founding fathers could. I’m referring to James Madison and in the Federalist Paper No 10 he explained the reason for Bicameralism, “Before taking effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people’s representatives in the House and the State legislatures’ agents in the Senate.” This requirement would not only provide the means to ensure the concept of Federalism but would thwart the influence of special interests because of the requirement of satisfying two separate constituencies. Mr. Madison further explained the concept in Federalist Paper No 51: “In republican government, the legislative authority, necessarily predominate. The remedy for this inconveniency is, to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them by different modes of election, and different principals of action, as little connected with each other, as the nature of their common functions and their common dependencies on the society, will admit.” You may be surprised to learn that the original method of Senator selection was so important that it was one of the few principals that enjoyed nearly unanimous approval by the founding fathers. Because of the Seventeenth Amendment, the authority of each State has been greatly reduced and due to the power of incumbency, each Senator has become a Potentate instead of a representative in a Senate that is coming to resemble the Senate of Rome in its last days. Also, because the Senators are now elected, special interests have a corruption avenue equal to that in the House of Representatives to funnel money and power to ensure election and satisfy plain old greed in exchange for favors in the legislative process. Indeed, the current financial catastrophe we find ourselves in can be traced directly to the influence of special interests in causing the Gramm-Leach-Blily (GLB) act in 1999 to become law. That law was enacted in spite of repeated warnings by knowledgeable and responsible people that its enactment would produce a financial crisis of Biblical proportions. The GLB act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall act of 1933 that was enacted to prevent the kind of financial crisis that produced the great depression. The GLB act removed most all restrictions and separations between commercial banks and all other investment and financial entities. Viola, financial crisis circa 2008, and all because special interests have gained a foothold that the founding fathers tried with all of their wisdom to prevent. I could even make the case that Article 1, Section 3, of the Constitution addressed the most fundamental special interest problem indigenous to a mature society. The special interest that I’m referring to is the special interest of the Cities versus the rest of the country. The cities always attract the most intellectual and financial capital and this concentration of wealth always demands more and more resources from the rest of the country. The ever-increasing demands of the Cities always causes a schism to develop between the whole of the people because one cannot exist without the other yet the cities keep making demands that would cause the rest of the country to fall into ruin (much like Rome in its final days). The cities can do this because there have the greater population concentration and can easily overwhelm the rest of the country with superior political power especially within a “one man, one vote” system. I refer you to the USA Today 2004 Presidential Election map down to the county level (commonly referred to as the “Red/Blue map) that clearly shows the cities (population areas) voting one way and the rest of the country another. The requirement that Senators be agents of the State instead of being directly elected by the people addressed the City/Country schism in a remarkable and effective way. I invite you to consider other areas that the 17th Amendment ratification may have influenced upon but suffice to say, the consequences of the 17th Amendment are far reaching and quite possibly damaging to our country as well.
Ronald L Clark
Ronald L Clark
Restore Federalism!! An important article for discussion on the 17th Amendment - http://www.restorefederalism.org/?gclid=CIXL4q37pr4CFeJDMgodVm4AvQ
Why the Left Likes the 17th Amendment
Black voters could decide who controls the Senate in 2015. Here’s how.
By Aaron Blake
Black voters played a huge role in delivering Barack Obama to the White House in 2008 and 2012. And in 2014, they will play a huge role in determining whether the president's party can stop Republicans from taking the Senate.
Why? Here are four reasons:
1. Black voters are hugely influential on the 2014 map
Six of the 16 states with the highest black populations are holding key Senate contests in 2014. A seventh -- the most African American state in the country, Mississippi -- is holding a contest that could get interesting if there's a tea party upset in the GOP primary.
This is a highly unusual set of circumstances, especially when you consider that most states with large numbers of African American voters generally don't hold competitive Senate races because they are safely red (in the South, generally) or blue (in the Northeast).
What's more, black voters don't just matter to a lot of races; they also matter to the most important races.
Three of the states listed above -- Louisiana, North Carolina and Arkansas -- are widely considered to be the most pivotal when it comes to the GOP's hopes of winning the majority. These three races are expected to be the difference between a GOP majority and a Democratic majority -- at least the way things look right now.
2. Black voters are among the biggest midterm dropoff voters
An increase in African American turnout was huge for President Obama's 2008 election and 2012 reelection, but history shows black voters are generally much less apt to vote than white voters, and that trend is even more pronounced in midterms.
Read more....http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/black-voters-could-decide-who-controls-the-senate-in-2015-heres-how/?wpisrc=nl_pmpol
By Aaron Blake
Black voters played a huge role in delivering Barack Obama to the White House in 2008 and 2012. And in 2014, they will play a huge role in determining whether the president's party can stop Republicans from taking the Senate.
Why? Here are four reasons:
1. Black voters are hugely influential on the 2014 map
Six of the 16 states with the highest black populations are holding key Senate contests in 2014. A seventh -- the most African American state in the country, Mississippi -- is holding a contest that could get interesting if there's a tea party upset in the GOP primary.
This is a highly unusual set of circumstances, especially when you consider that most states with large numbers of African American voters generally don't hold competitive Senate races because they are safely red (in the South, generally) or blue (in the Northeast).
What's more, black voters don't just matter to a lot of races; they also matter to the most important races.
Three of the states listed above -- Louisiana, North Carolina and Arkansas -- are widely considered to be the most pivotal when it comes to the GOP's hopes of winning the majority. These three races are expected to be the difference between a GOP majority and a Democratic majority -- at least the way things look right now.
2. Black voters are among the biggest midterm dropoff voters
An increase in African American turnout was huge for President Obama's 2008 election and 2012 reelection, but history shows black voters are generally much less apt to vote than white voters, and that trend is even more pronounced in midterms.
Read more....http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/black-voters-could-decide-who-controls-the-senate-in-2015-heres-how/?wpisrc=nl_pmpol
SEMPER VIGILANTUS
(ALWAYS VIGILANT) During the discussions in Philadelphia in 1783 and when Article 1, section 3 was voted on, James Wilson, one of the Delegates from Pennsylvania, was the only vote in favor of citizen elected Senators from each State. Not until 126 years later would Wilson’s single vote become a Majority with the passage of the 17th Amendment. Article 1, section 3: "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."
Second paragraph; "......(and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.)"
To be honest, in researching this article I have hit the proverbial brick wall. In an attempt to research the archives of some States, I have found that all the ones I tried, go back no further than 1983. When I tried to tap the National Congressional Archives as well as the Library of Congress I ran into the same problem.....Thomas (part of the Library of Congress), a national site of current bills on the agenda in both Houses of Congress has no long standing records either. So, as a last and desperate act, I actually read Article V, the Constitutional process of legislating amendments, and of course now I feel foolish since I have read it a zillion times but with age and time the memory does slip to some degree (in my case anyway).
To start I will post two definitions;
SHALL: To have to, a MUST (or absolute)
MAY: Be allowed or permitted to, an option.
It is very important to keep these two definitions in mind as you read this article because how they are applied makes and breaks Article 1, section 3 and Article V. My main focus is on the first, not the latter.
Several attempts to change the process of Senatorial appointments has happened, first in 1828/1829 and again in 1857, all attempts failed. As early as 1890 a progressive movement in the House started to question the validity of Senatorial process. Accusations of impropriety and deadlocks were the most common of complaints. Senator William Clark of Montana was never confirmed because of accusations of buying votes, the accusation was never investigated and Clark was never confirmed. In the 100 years since the Constitution was ratified only 10 investigations by the Senate for impropriety have happened and none proven.
On the State level, deadlocks occurred in the appointment of Senators. Accusations of biased appointments and favoritism by legislators often were the causes of these deadlocks. As a result, in Congress sometimes the Senate was not able to do business because of these missing Senators. Another reason for deadlocks was either State Legislators’ ambitions or the House of Representative members’ ambitions to fill a vacant seat in the Senate. However, much to the voices of the progressive movement at that time, deadlocks were not that common and even when there was one, did not last long.
Pro-17th Amendment: (Dem) William Jennings Bryan. Supporter of a popular democracy, enemy of the gold standard (depicted in "Wizard of Oz, as cowardly lion), banks, railroads and prohibitionist. Secretary of State under Wilson from 1913-1915 and served two terms as State Representative from Nebraska. Bryan was an avid opponent of Darwinism and most famous for the Scopes Trials in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925 against Clarence Darrow. He was also considered a Progressive Democrat and a three-time Presidential Candidate.
Anti-17th Amendment: (Rep) Elihu Root. [1912 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Secretary of War under two Presidents, (1899-1904), and Secretary of State under Teddy Roosevelt. Senator from New York from 1909-1915.] Root modernized the War Department and Army to a bone fide international recognized military, restructured the National Guards, created the Army War College, and set up the modern concept of a General Staff or Joint Chiefs of Staff as we know it today. The National Trophy Rifle Team (8 top civilian marksmen) are awarded the Elihu Root Gold Metal, and his home in Clinton, New York is a National Historic Landmark.
Arguments for the amendment included that the Senate was out of touch with the wishes of the people, and had no special interest in their welfare. Being elected by popular vote would not affect their responsibility to the States.
Arguments against the Amendment; Threat to the States as Independent and Sovereign, and the right to a separate branch of government
Lack of Vigilance:
In 1908 the Oregon State Legislators passed into law that the citizens of that State would from then on elect the Two Senators to represent the States in Congress. Nebraska soon followed and by 1910, 33 States had similar legislation. This became known as the Oregon System, and on June 12, 1911 the U.S. Senate by a vote of 64-12 with 4 not voting started the 17th Amendment process. On May 13, 1912, the House of Representatives passed the Amendment with a 238-39 vote, with 110 not voting. By April 8, 1913 the proposed Amendment had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. William Jennings Bryan, the Secretary of State, declared the Amendment adopted May 31, 1913. James Beauchamp (Champ) Clark, Dem, Moussori-9, Speaker of the House, April 1913-May 1919, has yet to officially certify ratification.
Seems simple, yet it is not, not then. Let me explain why. The only forms of communications they had then was telephone or telegraph, and mail which took at least a week for delivery coast to coast. Each and every bill introduced into the State Level Legislation had to be "docketed", written, debated, voted on, and passed, thus changing the Constitution of that State. However, I researched just three States, California, Washington and Idaho's Constitution and found NO such change on the date they "ratified" the Amendment. Someone, somewhere was not vigilant as to the keeping of Constitutionally Mandated records or/and this is only speculation that a broader scheme was afoot.
I also researched the House of Representatives' archives for ratification of the 17th, nothing so I extended it to ALL ratifications of any Amendment and the only thing that came back was Certification of Ratification of the 19th Amendment, Women’s Suffrage Amendment. What I did find curiously enough is that a lot of records are in what is called "minute books" or "pocket books". To get copies of these books is difficult to do and takes a long procedure through the Freedom of Information Act to access. As my mind races through all the possibilities of why I cannot obtain, via internet, verification of a most importance documents, seemingly others are not being vigilant as to the keeping of Constitutional Mandated Records. I did find in the Oregonian, dated Feb 2, 1914 that Senators must now campaign for office. In a more recent article date June of this year from The Thicket titled; The Senate without the 17th Amendment in which they argue that there would be little to no difference in the Senate per Party affiliation then pre 17th Amendment. The article goes on to say that the corruption at the State Legislative levels by big business to get their candidate appointed.
Vigilance of Intent:
Reason for Appointment of Senators by State Legislators.
1. Higher Standard of Qualification
2. Secures link between Citizen Representatives and Federal Government.
3. Equality of Representation of each State.
4. Impairment of improper acts of the House of Representatives.
5. Doubles the security of the People by requiring concurrence of two distinct bodies for any usurpation of powers or over extension of Constitutional authority.
6. Legitimizes the three branches of Government
7. Legitimizes the U.S. Government to other Nations of the World.
Above list Taken from Federalist Paper No. 62 by Hamilton.
"A good government implies two things, first, fidelity to the object of Government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly acknowledge of the means of by which that object can best be attained."
"No Government any more than an individual will long be respected without being truly respectable, nor truly respectable without possessing a certain portion of order and stability."
Above Federalist Paper No. 63 by Hamilton.
My argument as to being a Constitutional Vigilante, and an die hard American Patriot.
Vigilant: on the alert
Vigilance: to be watchful
Vigilante: a member of a vigilance committee
vigilante committee: a volunteer group of citizens that without authority assumes police powers.
The last definition, Mr. Webster and I will have an eternal argument about. My point is, if those in authority to enforce or make laws are themselves criminals, then it is the duty of those law minded citizens to take the law into their hands to retain peace and order - For family and community protection and safety, first and foremost. I believe most law abiding citizens are watchful and alert to law violators, and with a clear conscience assume the responsibilities of overcoming a criminal government and not be outlaws while doing that.
I believe that Mr. Hamilton’s point of the legitimacy of three branches of government is clearly one of the most important reasons of Article 1, sec 3. We are a Nation of Laws and without that standard we are nothing more than a herd of humans being led to National perdition. We have a soulless government, without integrity or conscience, without goals or purpose or guidance, a dreamless land, hollow and without worth.
All the other reasons of Mr. Hamilton far outweigh the reasons of the passage of the 17th Amendment. At the time this amendment was passed, the beginnings of the Progressive movement in this country were blooming, Teddy Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson being the leaders of such a movement. What part was played by these men and others will never be known and only suspect as to the outcome of their influence. It is obvious today that the vigilant warnings of Hamilton and Senator Root are now being played out by those Progressives. Just over a hundred years later, we are now a Godless government, led by godless men and women who refuse to be vigilant in their duties, oaths and the Restraints of the Constitution.
As I pray for this country, I envision God is weeping, and I asked every single day: what can I do to stop that? That question has many answers; one is to daily advocate the restoration of this Nation. Be vigilant in my duty as a Patriot, vigilance in the leaders of this country and join other vigilante's in the quest of the renewal of our happiness.
Lord, help each and every citizen to be vigilant in their responsibility to You and this Nation. Strengthen our hearts, minds, spirits and hands for there is much work to be done.
Good bye, so long and close the gate please.
Lawman
Second paragraph; "......(and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.)"
To be honest, in researching this article I have hit the proverbial brick wall. In an attempt to research the archives of some States, I have found that all the ones I tried, go back no further than 1983. When I tried to tap the National Congressional Archives as well as the Library of Congress I ran into the same problem.....Thomas (part of the Library of Congress), a national site of current bills on the agenda in both Houses of Congress has no long standing records either. So, as a last and desperate act, I actually read Article V, the Constitutional process of legislating amendments, and of course now I feel foolish since I have read it a zillion times but with age and time the memory does slip to some degree (in my case anyway).
To start I will post two definitions;
SHALL: To have to, a MUST (or absolute)
MAY: Be allowed or permitted to, an option.
It is very important to keep these two definitions in mind as you read this article because how they are applied makes and breaks Article 1, section 3 and Article V. My main focus is on the first, not the latter.
Several attempts to change the process of Senatorial appointments has happened, first in 1828/1829 and again in 1857, all attempts failed. As early as 1890 a progressive movement in the House started to question the validity of Senatorial process. Accusations of impropriety and deadlocks were the most common of complaints. Senator William Clark of Montana was never confirmed because of accusations of buying votes, the accusation was never investigated and Clark was never confirmed. In the 100 years since the Constitution was ratified only 10 investigations by the Senate for impropriety have happened and none proven.
On the State level, deadlocks occurred in the appointment of Senators. Accusations of biased appointments and favoritism by legislators often were the causes of these deadlocks. As a result, in Congress sometimes the Senate was not able to do business because of these missing Senators. Another reason for deadlocks was either State Legislators’ ambitions or the House of Representative members’ ambitions to fill a vacant seat in the Senate. However, much to the voices of the progressive movement at that time, deadlocks were not that common and even when there was one, did not last long.
Pro-17th Amendment: (Dem) William Jennings Bryan. Supporter of a popular democracy, enemy of the gold standard (depicted in "Wizard of Oz, as cowardly lion), banks, railroads and prohibitionist. Secretary of State under Wilson from 1913-1915 and served two terms as State Representative from Nebraska. Bryan was an avid opponent of Darwinism and most famous for the Scopes Trials in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925 against Clarence Darrow. He was also considered a Progressive Democrat and a three-time Presidential Candidate.
Anti-17th Amendment: (Rep) Elihu Root. [1912 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Secretary of War under two Presidents, (1899-1904), and Secretary of State under Teddy Roosevelt. Senator from New York from 1909-1915.] Root modernized the War Department and Army to a bone fide international recognized military, restructured the National Guards, created the Army War College, and set up the modern concept of a General Staff or Joint Chiefs of Staff as we know it today. The National Trophy Rifle Team (8 top civilian marksmen) are awarded the Elihu Root Gold Metal, and his home in Clinton, New York is a National Historic Landmark.
Arguments for the amendment included that the Senate was out of touch with the wishes of the people, and had no special interest in their welfare. Being elected by popular vote would not affect their responsibility to the States.
Arguments against the Amendment; Threat to the States as Independent and Sovereign, and the right to a separate branch of government
Lack of Vigilance:
In 1908 the Oregon State Legislators passed into law that the citizens of that State would from then on elect the Two Senators to represent the States in Congress. Nebraska soon followed and by 1910, 33 States had similar legislation. This became known as the Oregon System, and on June 12, 1911 the U.S. Senate by a vote of 64-12 with 4 not voting started the 17th Amendment process. On May 13, 1912, the House of Representatives passed the Amendment with a 238-39 vote, with 110 not voting. By April 8, 1913 the proposed Amendment had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. William Jennings Bryan, the Secretary of State, declared the Amendment adopted May 31, 1913. James Beauchamp (Champ) Clark, Dem, Moussori-9, Speaker of the House, April 1913-May 1919, has yet to officially certify ratification.
Seems simple, yet it is not, not then. Let me explain why. The only forms of communications they had then was telephone or telegraph, and mail which took at least a week for delivery coast to coast. Each and every bill introduced into the State Level Legislation had to be "docketed", written, debated, voted on, and passed, thus changing the Constitution of that State. However, I researched just three States, California, Washington and Idaho's Constitution and found NO such change on the date they "ratified" the Amendment. Someone, somewhere was not vigilant as to the keeping of Constitutionally Mandated records or/and this is only speculation that a broader scheme was afoot.
I also researched the House of Representatives' archives for ratification of the 17th, nothing so I extended it to ALL ratifications of any Amendment and the only thing that came back was Certification of Ratification of the 19th Amendment, Women’s Suffrage Amendment. What I did find curiously enough is that a lot of records are in what is called "minute books" or "pocket books". To get copies of these books is difficult to do and takes a long procedure through the Freedom of Information Act to access. As my mind races through all the possibilities of why I cannot obtain, via internet, verification of a most importance documents, seemingly others are not being vigilant as to the keeping of Constitutional Mandated Records. I did find in the Oregonian, dated Feb 2, 1914 that Senators must now campaign for office. In a more recent article date June of this year from The Thicket titled; The Senate without the 17th Amendment in which they argue that there would be little to no difference in the Senate per Party affiliation then pre 17th Amendment. The article goes on to say that the corruption at the State Legislative levels by big business to get their candidate appointed.
Vigilance of Intent:
Reason for Appointment of Senators by State Legislators.
1. Higher Standard of Qualification
2. Secures link between Citizen Representatives and Federal Government.
3. Equality of Representation of each State.
4. Impairment of improper acts of the House of Representatives.
5. Doubles the security of the People by requiring concurrence of two distinct bodies for any usurpation of powers or over extension of Constitutional authority.
6. Legitimizes the three branches of Government
7. Legitimizes the U.S. Government to other Nations of the World.
Above list Taken from Federalist Paper No. 62 by Hamilton.
"A good government implies two things, first, fidelity to the object of Government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly acknowledge of the means of by which that object can best be attained."
"No Government any more than an individual will long be respected without being truly respectable, nor truly respectable without possessing a certain portion of order and stability."
Above Federalist Paper No. 63 by Hamilton.
My argument as to being a Constitutional Vigilante, and an die hard American Patriot.
Vigilant: on the alert
Vigilance: to be watchful
Vigilante: a member of a vigilance committee
vigilante committee: a volunteer group of citizens that without authority assumes police powers.
The last definition, Mr. Webster and I will have an eternal argument about. My point is, if those in authority to enforce or make laws are themselves criminals, then it is the duty of those law minded citizens to take the law into their hands to retain peace and order - For family and community protection and safety, first and foremost. I believe most law abiding citizens are watchful and alert to law violators, and with a clear conscience assume the responsibilities of overcoming a criminal government and not be outlaws while doing that.
I believe that Mr. Hamilton’s point of the legitimacy of three branches of government is clearly one of the most important reasons of Article 1, sec 3. We are a Nation of Laws and without that standard we are nothing more than a herd of humans being led to National perdition. We have a soulless government, without integrity or conscience, without goals or purpose or guidance, a dreamless land, hollow and without worth.
All the other reasons of Mr. Hamilton far outweigh the reasons of the passage of the 17th Amendment. At the time this amendment was passed, the beginnings of the Progressive movement in this country were blooming, Teddy Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson being the leaders of such a movement. What part was played by these men and others will never be known and only suspect as to the outcome of their influence. It is obvious today that the vigilant warnings of Hamilton and Senator Root are now being played out by those Progressives. Just over a hundred years later, we are now a Godless government, led by godless men and women who refuse to be vigilant in their duties, oaths and the Restraints of the Constitution.
As I pray for this country, I envision God is weeping, and I asked every single day: what can I do to stop that? That question has many answers; one is to daily advocate the restoration of this Nation. Be vigilant in my duty as a Patriot, vigilance in the leaders of this country and join other vigilante's in the quest of the renewal of our happiness.
Lord, help each and every citizen to be vigilant in their responsibility to You and this Nation. Strengthen our hearts, minds, spirits and hands for there is much work to be done.
Good bye, so long and close the gate please.
Lawman
The Argument to Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution
One of the less known and more controversial moments in the history of the Constitution of the United States was the 17th amendment of 1913. It birthed what some claimed was a more fair and accountable political system, and what others called Unconstitutional, tyrannical, and the removal of the voice of the States at the seat of government.
Out of the 17th amendment’s ratification came a movement to repeal the seventeenth amendment and return to original Constitutional law, and of course, a movement that supported a federal plan for electing Senators.
The original words of the the Constitution that are changed by the Seventeenth Amendment are in Article 1 Section 3, and read:
“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”
The Seventeenth Amendment ratification eliminated the Constitutional mandate for Senators to the Congress of the United States to be chosen by the respective State Legislatures, who are elected by vote by the people within the respective state districts.
In other words, the 17th amendment of 1913 made it so Senators to the Congress of the United States are no longer chosen by State Legislatures and instead by popular vote of citizens, direct election, as in the house of representatives.
The argument to repeal the seventeenth amendment of the Constitution centers around the problem with directly electing Senators-a powerful and important political office- which is that it is the removal of another barrier or filter within government, and the removal of a motivator for active individuals in state government.
The direct election of Senators, which is what occurs now, is carried out in only one step, whereas if the movement to repeal the seventeenth amendment was successful, Senators would once again be chosen by State Legislators, who are first chosen by the people. The people are given incentive to put importance in the election of state legislators, because of their duty in the selection of Senators.
By first delegating the power of Congressional Senator election to a State Senator, an urgency in State Legislature elections is created. This drives more voters to research and participate in State Elections, especially the office of a State Senator. Once State Senators are elected, the election of Congressional Senators then must go through another check and balance with those elected by the politically motivated people of the respective State. Once the Congressional Senators are chosen, they then give the respective State they are from a seat at the table of legislation, instead of simply mimicking the house of representatives and adding to federal power.
State Legislatures selecting Senators owned a purpose, which was to make sure there was a seat at the table for the States in the creation of legislation. As Judge Napolitano, author of the recent "It’s Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong” explains:
Out of the 17th amendment’s ratification came a movement to repeal the seventeenth amendment and return to original Constitutional law, and of course, a movement that supported a federal plan for electing Senators.
The original words of the the Constitution that are changed by the Seventeenth Amendment are in Article 1 Section 3, and read:
“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”
The Seventeenth Amendment ratification eliminated the Constitutional mandate for Senators to the Congress of the United States to be chosen by the respective State Legislatures, who are elected by vote by the people within the respective state districts.
In other words, the 17th amendment of 1913 made it so Senators to the Congress of the United States are no longer chosen by State Legislatures and instead by popular vote of citizens, direct election, as in the house of representatives.
The argument to repeal the seventeenth amendment of the Constitution centers around the problem with directly electing Senators-a powerful and important political office- which is that it is the removal of another barrier or filter within government, and the removal of a motivator for active individuals in state government.
The direct election of Senators, which is what occurs now, is carried out in only one step, whereas if the movement to repeal the seventeenth amendment was successful, Senators would once again be chosen by State Legislators, who are first chosen by the people. The people are given incentive to put importance in the election of state legislators, because of their duty in the selection of Senators.
By first delegating the power of Congressional Senator election to a State Senator, an urgency in State Legislature elections is created. This drives more voters to research and participate in State Elections, especially the office of a State Senator. Once State Senators are elected, the election of Congressional Senators then must go through another check and balance with those elected by the politically motivated people of the respective State. Once the Congressional Senators are chosen, they then give the respective State they are from a seat at the table of legislation, instead of simply mimicking the house of representatives and adding to federal power.
State Legislatures selecting Senators owned a purpose, which was to make sure there was a seat at the table for the States in the creation of legislation. As Judge Napolitano, author of the recent "It’s Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong” explains:
[Judge Napolitano at 2:20 on the argument to Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment]
“There would be the nation as a nation, there would be the people, and there would be the states. The nation as a nation is the president, the people is the House of Representatives, and the states is the Senate, because states sent senators.”
[Judge Napolitano's infamous Theodore & Woodrow, an enlightening read]
Judge Napolitano makes an important and intelligent point, if the States were to select Senators, wouldn’t that create a voice for the individual States? Wasn’t the entire point of the Senate an equalizer between States so that smaller states contained the same legislative power as a large state in at-least one house?
It’s interesting to ponder what would be different if the Seventeenth Amendment ratification of 1913 did not occur. Of course, it was the states themselves who with a 3/4 majority, ratified the amendment. But I wonder what the intentions of those officials in power was at that time, and if they truly held the intention to ensure freedom of their fellow citizens . I also wonder whether those who did have good intentions would ratify again and whether they knew what they were truly getting into.
If two of the three legislative arms are chosen by popular vote and by the same group of voters, where is the resistance or balance? If the same members of society directly choose the Senate and the House, why would the results differ in philosophy or intention? But if the people have incentive to pay attention to State government and elect legislature, and Legislature chooses the Senate, the Senate calls upon the more active members of differing political philosophies to participate. By asking for more effort, only those who have discovered their interest in one side or one opinion and researched it are encouraged to act.
This lack of State voice at the table of legislation is behind the movement to repeal the seventeenth amendment and likely behind the widespread increase in use of Nullification by the individuals within the United States, which is not a bad thing, but a sign that the individuals within the respective States are tired of federal tyranny, across the board, and that it is time for individuals to once again own their lives, for states to protect that sacred Liberty, and for the federal government to get out of the way.
Ahmed Serag
http://livingnotsurviving.com/2013/06/18/the-argument-to-repeal-the-seventeenth-amendment-of-the-constitution/
“There would be the nation as a nation, there would be the people, and there would be the states. The nation as a nation is the president, the people is the House of Representatives, and the states is the Senate, because states sent senators.”
[Judge Napolitano's infamous Theodore & Woodrow, an enlightening read]
Judge Napolitano makes an important and intelligent point, if the States were to select Senators, wouldn’t that create a voice for the individual States? Wasn’t the entire point of the Senate an equalizer between States so that smaller states contained the same legislative power as a large state in at-least one house?
It’s interesting to ponder what would be different if the Seventeenth Amendment ratification of 1913 did not occur. Of course, it was the states themselves who with a 3/4 majority, ratified the amendment. But I wonder what the intentions of those officials in power was at that time, and if they truly held the intention to ensure freedom of their fellow citizens . I also wonder whether those who did have good intentions would ratify again and whether they knew what they were truly getting into.
If two of the three legislative arms are chosen by popular vote and by the same group of voters, where is the resistance or balance? If the same members of society directly choose the Senate and the House, why would the results differ in philosophy or intention? But if the people have incentive to pay attention to State government and elect legislature, and Legislature chooses the Senate, the Senate calls upon the more active members of differing political philosophies to participate. By asking for more effort, only those who have discovered their interest in one side or one opinion and researched it are encouraged to act.
This lack of State voice at the table of legislation is behind the movement to repeal the seventeenth amendment and likely behind the widespread increase in use of Nullification by the individuals within the United States, which is not a bad thing, but a sign that the individuals within the respective States are tired of federal tyranny, across the board, and that it is time for individuals to once again own their lives, for states to protect that sacred Liberty, and for the federal government to get out of the way.
Ahmed Serag
http://livingnotsurviving.com/2013/06/18/the-argument-to-repeal-the-seventeenth-amendment-of-the-constitution/
Repeal the 17th Amendment
By Tenth Amendment on October 24, 2008
by John MacMullin, Mises.org
Nearing election time again, we are reminded that the there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures’ power to appoint (and remove) United States Senators.
As such, the core of the problem with state’s rights issues lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which abrogated the state legislatures’ right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area.
The 17th Amendment caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.
The amendment has also caused a fundamental breakdown in campaign finance issues with respect to United States Senators. As to United States Senators, campaign finance reform, a hot topic in Congress now, can be best achieved by repealing the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It should be readily apparent that United States Senators, once appointed by the state legislature, would have no need for campaign financing whatsoever.
The reason for the passage of the 17th Amendment should be stated. The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate.
For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months. Additionally, numerous other problems resulted from the efforts to resolve individual deadlocks. The problem of deadlocked legislatures continued unabated from 1787 until 1913.
The 17th amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately and unintentionally altered the balance of power. Instead, the 17th Amendment should have fixed the procedural problems and left the balance of power between the states and the federal government intact.
The 17th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states’ linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process. The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate.
It would give state legislatures direct influence over the selection of federal judges and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and much greater ability to modify the power of the federal judiciary. This structure would allow the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change.
The existing relationship, combined with the effect of the Supremacy Clause, is guaranteed to concentrate power into the hands of the federal government with little or no hope of return. The resulting issue surrounding the fracas between the states and federal government is whether the states or the federal government should be exercising a particular power.
The impact of the 17th Amendment upon that issue and the states’ present ability to exercise the original power granted to them by the Framers of our Constitution is clear.
A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, designed to repeal the 17th Amendment, follows:
AN AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT AND RELINK THE STATES TO THE FEDERAL POLITICAL PROCESS
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.
John MacMullin(john.macmullin@cox.net) practices law in Phoenix, Arizona. He has written extensively in the law literature on the 17th Amendment. See MacMullin J., “Amplifying the Tenth Amendment,” 31 Ariz.L.R. 915 (1989)Â You can receive the Mises Daily Article in your inbox.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/
by John MacMullin, Mises.org
Nearing election time again, we are reminded that the there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures’ power to appoint (and remove) United States Senators.
As such, the core of the problem with state’s rights issues lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which abrogated the state legislatures’ right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area.
The 17th Amendment caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.
The amendment has also caused a fundamental breakdown in campaign finance issues with respect to United States Senators. As to United States Senators, campaign finance reform, a hot topic in Congress now, can be best achieved by repealing the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It should be readily apparent that United States Senators, once appointed by the state legislature, would have no need for campaign financing whatsoever.
The reason for the passage of the 17th Amendment should be stated. The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate.
For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months. Additionally, numerous other problems resulted from the efforts to resolve individual deadlocks. The problem of deadlocked legislatures continued unabated from 1787 until 1913.
The 17th amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately and unintentionally altered the balance of power. Instead, the 17th Amendment should have fixed the procedural problems and left the balance of power between the states and the federal government intact.
The 17th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states’ linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process. The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate.
It would give state legislatures direct influence over the selection of federal judges and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and much greater ability to modify the power of the federal judiciary. This structure would allow the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change.
The existing relationship, combined with the effect of the Supremacy Clause, is guaranteed to concentrate power into the hands of the federal government with little or no hope of return. The resulting issue surrounding the fracas between the states and federal government is whether the states or the federal government should be exercising a particular power.
The impact of the 17th Amendment upon that issue and the states’ present ability to exercise the original power granted to them by the Framers of our Constitution is clear.
A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, designed to repeal the 17th Amendment, follows:
AN AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT AND RELINK THE STATES TO THE FEDERAL POLITICAL PROCESS
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.
John MacMullin(john.macmullin@cox.net) practices law in Phoenix, Arizona. He has written extensively in the law literature on the 17th Amendment. See MacMullin J., “Amplifying the Tenth Amendment,” 31 Ariz.L.R. 915 (1989)Â You can receive the Mises Daily Article in your inbox.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/
17th Amendment Discussion
If you study the history, corruption and elitism, and the “you-scratch mine-an-I'll-scratch-yours”...conditions in the government, you will see that these were the driving and public motivators of the day which promoted and established the adoption of the 17th.
Question - how is the condition today any different? In fact we would offer it as far worse....much more invested – influence - money in question - regulation and programs to offer as the “carrot-career” politicians with power to promote and protect - the 17th makes government about politics and politicians instead of about good government for the people.
In the day of debate and public presentation of the 17th, people had few public communication options....the printed press/word of mouth - trust a growing government that has the best intentions.
Today - many forms of communication, everyday people can find a voting record on line, if they don't want to trust established media, they can investigate on their own with a computer and a keyboard...it is no longer the case that we cannot know what our officials are doing in our interest...if the senators were returned to the states....they would have to do our business in our states and not in Washington D.C. with Harry/ Nancy/the president calling the shots and reigning in the troops.
Yet the 17th was supposed to make things better? It is a 100-year experiment that did not work and most likely it is far worse today. We should return to the original intent of the Constitution and chose our Senators in the manner set forth in the original Constitution.
Knowing the reason they crafted the 17th amendment and that the “fix” (the 17th) is a cure worse than the disease...the dysfunction of today's senate and the power it gives to the controlling party in power in Washington (democrat or republican) Badly needs to be addressed. The 17th lends to/compounds all the problems we discuss on these boards every day. - L.Y.
Question - how is the condition today any different? In fact we would offer it as far worse....much more invested – influence - money in question - regulation and programs to offer as the “carrot-career” politicians with power to promote and protect - the 17th makes government about politics and politicians instead of about good government for the people.
In the day of debate and public presentation of the 17th, people had few public communication options....the printed press/word of mouth - trust a growing government that has the best intentions.
Today - many forms of communication, everyday people can find a voting record on line, if they don't want to trust established media, they can investigate on their own with a computer and a keyboard...it is no longer the case that we cannot know what our officials are doing in our interest...if the senators were returned to the states....they would have to do our business in our states and not in Washington D.C. with Harry/ Nancy/the president calling the shots and reigning in the troops.
Yet the 17th was supposed to make things better? It is a 100-year experiment that did not work and most likely it is far worse today. We should return to the original intent of the Constitution and chose our Senators in the manner set forth in the original Constitution.
Knowing the reason they crafted the 17th amendment and that the “fix” (the 17th) is a cure worse than the disease...the dysfunction of today's senate and the power it gives to the controlling party in power in Washington (democrat or republican) Badly needs to be addressed. The 17th lends to/compounds all the problems we discuss on these boards every day. - L.Y.
State Populations
The difference in State populations was known and considered by the Founders; that is why they created the Senate and made it an appointed position by the State legislature to keep it beholding to the power of the individual and the State. The change to an elected Senate has been a disaster with people holding power for 50+ years - the elected Senators have no beholding to the State Legislature and in fact often go against the States’ best interest.
This is only one of the problems with the 17th amendment.
The Founders had considerable debate about the Bill of Rights as some thought that just stating some might be construed to eliminate other that were not mentioned specifically. In other words they were concerned about limiting our UNLIMITED rights from the Creator or the natural laws.
Indeed they were very concerned and rightly so. I think they took great pains to eliminate the possibility of someone drawing the conclusion that they enumerated the ONLY rights we have. Tenth Amendment being a prime example. I don't see how it could have been stated any clearer.
Yes about the 10th, but look at how the Progressives have abused and usurped the intent and powers contained therein? Power without a concern citizenry will be concentrated in those that will just take or act without fear of reprisal.
Unknown Author
This is only one of the problems with the 17th amendment.
The Founders had considerable debate about the Bill of Rights as some thought that just stating some might be construed to eliminate other that were not mentioned specifically. In other words they were concerned about limiting our UNLIMITED rights from the Creator or the natural laws.
Indeed they were very concerned and rightly so. I think they took great pains to eliminate the possibility of someone drawing the conclusion that they enumerated the ONLY rights we have. Tenth Amendment being a prime example. I don't see how it could have been stated any clearer.
Yes about the 10th, but look at how the Progressives have abused and usurped the intent and powers contained therein? Power without a concern citizenry will be concentrated in those that will just take or act without fear of reprisal.
Unknown Author
The U. S. is a CONSTITUTIONAL ’REPUBLIC’
That is why the people house is based on population to provide a voice for the majority. you must remember America is "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" and we are not a Democracy or a Democratic form of government so the question of is that Democratic is mute.
The Senate was designed to be a voice for the States and minorities, before the 17th amendment Senators were selected by the State legislatures and the Senators were then beholding to the State population through their elected representatives in their State houses.
And this is the way it must be in one house of Government to protect the individual person and the small States from being run over. If we return to Original Constitution, these things will not matter because the enumerated powers will protect the States by removing their usurped powers now in use.
The Founders had the same problem back then many farmer States and a few industrial manufacturing high population States. They designed the Senate to protect these small farm based States. What you are describing is a "DEMOCRACY" AMERICA IS A "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" - by design to protect the smallest minority from a aggressive majority - that smallest minority would be the sovereign individual (single citizen).
The local governments and school districts have many employees that were created by the GRANT programs of the Federal Government. All those that want fed funds must have staff or hire consultants to make GRANT applications. The beggars line to The Agencies of Congress that bribe lower governments to behave in desired ways.
The beggar creates government jobs to talk and appeal to other government employees that are managed by other government employees. It also applies to Universities, Amtrak, Freddie, Fannie, Post office, DOT, FHA, USDA and a very long list of takers - not one item of value produced? Huuuuummm!
Maybe because the existing Constitution has been usurped by all three branches of the Federal Government and has three fatal flaws that must be eliminated the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. We also must (reset if you like the term) the true and actual meanings of the Founders words and clauses. The Progressives over the last 110 years have created holes in the basic fabric of the Constitution. So, they can create new rights and laws outside the limits that most of us citizens would see in the Constitution.
This would appear to fix the Federal problems - no more alphabet agencies telling the States and the People what, when and where they can exercise their freedoms and individual sovereignty.
The Senate was designed to be a voice for the States and minorities, before the 17th amendment Senators were selected by the State legislatures and the Senators were then beholding to the State population through their elected representatives in their State houses.
And this is the way it must be in one house of Government to protect the individual person and the small States from being run over. If we return to Original Constitution, these things will not matter because the enumerated powers will protect the States by removing their usurped powers now in use.
The Founders had the same problem back then many farmer States and a few industrial manufacturing high population States. They designed the Senate to protect these small farm based States. What you are describing is a "DEMOCRACY" AMERICA IS A "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" - by design to protect the smallest minority from a aggressive majority - that smallest minority would be the sovereign individual (single citizen).
The local governments and school districts have many employees that were created by the GRANT programs of the Federal Government. All those that want fed funds must have staff or hire consultants to make GRANT applications. The beggars line to The Agencies of Congress that bribe lower governments to behave in desired ways.
The beggar creates government jobs to talk and appeal to other government employees that are managed by other government employees. It also applies to Universities, Amtrak, Freddie, Fannie, Post office, DOT, FHA, USDA and a very long list of takers - not one item of value produced? Huuuuummm!
Maybe because the existing Constitution has been usurped by all three branches of the Federal Government and has three fatal flaws that must be eliminated the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. We also must (reset if you like the term) the true and actual meanings of the Founders words and clauses. The Progressives over the last 110 years have created holes in the basic fabric of the Constitution. So, they can create new rights and laws outside the limits that most of us citizens would see in the Constitution.
This would appear to fix the Federal problems - no more alphabet agencies telling the States and the People what, when and where they can exercise their freedoms and individual sovereignty.
Banking Collapse
How about some history and the banking collapses of the 80's and 2005's
I would not believe Mr. Roberts. He was on the deck when the banks loaned so much money to the foreign governments that they were technically bankrupt. Nine out of the top 10 money center banks were bankrupt at the end of the Carter era. Their delinquent loans to Russian nations, Mexico, South America and even some Asian nations exceed their shareholders equity. In other word they lost the total worth of the bank they were worthless.
I was leaning very hard on Senator Chic Hecht of Nevada and Senator Barry Goldwater to take action before we had a full-fledged commercial bank collapse. I received a call from Senator Hecht the morning the Continental Illinois bank of Chicago was seized by the FED. He said this was not as I thought the tip of the iceberg as I proposed but an isolated case.
Well upon review of the assets of the failed bank, it became apparent why the Congress used the FED to pay all creditors even those with more than the $100,000 insured limits. If they allowed the bank to fail and the assets were sold on the open market, the actual real value of all the bad foreign loans would be established and the other money center banks would be required to write down their loans to the lower market value.
This would cause a run on the banks and a total financial collapse.
Now comes Mr. Roberts and companies ideas to continue the super high interest rates created under Carter (16% one year treasury bill) fully knowing that it would bankrupt all the nations Saving and Loans which is exactly what happened.
Saving and loans were bankrupted the day Carter signed off on removing usury rates on lenders. S&Ls were forced by laws to have most of their deposits invested in home loans which were payable a under 6% over 30 years. Now to raise capital they had to pay more than the 16% rate so they were doomed. To help stall this known result the Reagan people changed the rules and allowed S&Ls to become developers and take huge risks so they might have a chance to pull it out.
Well this was all a stalling move that permitted the money center banks to earn enough money on these super high rates to turn them around and save them from collapse. This was simply a indirect tax on the people to bailout the financial sector.
Does any of this sound familiar? Same bad loans same leverage again - history does repeat itself because we are uneducated.
I would not believe Mr. Roberts. He was on the deck when the banks loaned so much money to the foreign governments that they were technically bankrupt. Nine out of the top 10 money center banks were bankrupt at the end of the Carter era. Their delinquent loans to Russian nations, Mexico, South America and even some Asian nations exceed their shareholders equity. In other word they lost the total worth of the bank they were worthless.
I was leaning very hard on Senator Chic Hecht of Nevada and Senator Barry Goldwater to take action before we had a full-fledged commercial bank collapse. I received a call from Senator Hecht the morning the Continental Illinois bank of Chicago was seized by the FED. He said this was not as I thought the tip of the iceberg as I proposed but an isolated case.
Well upon review of the assets of the failed bank, it became apparent why the Congress used the FED to pay all creditors even those with more than the $100,000 insured limits. If they allowed the bank to fail and the assets were sold on the open market, the actual real value of all the bad foreign loans would be established and the other money center banks would be required to write down their loans to the lower market value.
This would cause a run on the banks and a total financial collapse.
Now comes Mr. Roberts and companies ideas to continue the super high interest rates created under Carter (16% one year treasury bill) fully knowing that it would bankrupt all the nations Saving and Loans which is exactly what happened.
Saving and loans were bankrupted the day Carter signed off on removing usury rates on lenders. S&Ls were forced by laws to have most of their deposits invested in home loans which were payable a under 6% over 30 years. Now to raise capital they had to pay more than the 16% rate so they were doomed. To help stall this known result the Reagan people changed the rules and allowed S&Ls to become developers and take huge risks so they might have a chance to pull it out.
Well this was all a stalling move that permitted the money center banks to earn enough money on these super high rates to turn them around and save them from collapse. This was simply a indirect tax on the people to bailout the financial sector.
Does any of this sound familiar? Same bad loans same leverage again - history does repeat itself because we are uneducated.
Downsize
The Downsize DC Foundation's website, www.DownsizeDCFoundation.org, continues to grow. Today, we bring you one of those articles, from the Our Lexicon category . . .
"The Dictator Fallacy" by Jim Babka
fal•la•cy -
* a misleading or unsound argument.
* Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
Do you . . .
* believe in our Constitution with its different branches and its separation of powers?
* support the idea that The State should be managed by elected representatives?
* oppose monarchies, dictatorships, and other authoritarian forms of The State?
I bet you'd answer "Yes" to all of these questions.
"The Dictator Fallacy" by Jim Babka
fal•la•cy -
* a misleading or unsound argument.
* Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
Do you . . .
* believe in our Constitution with its different branches and its separation of powers?
* support the idea that The State should be managed by elected representatives?
* oppose monarchies, dictatorships, and other authoritarian forms of The State?
I bet you'd answer "Yes" to all of these questions.
Despite answering yes, nearly everyone pretends, at some point, that they can design laws and programs that manage human behavior, leading to an ideal social result.
* Maybe even you believe you know the best way to solve a particular societal problem with a better organizational solution.
* Perhaps you admire and support a particular candidate who claims he has just the right incentive, program, or regulation that will do the trick.
Well, if you ever catch yourself (or another person), making such a pronouncement, then you can KNOW that either you (or they) are wrong.
You see . . .
When you have "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," YOUR "grand design" won't work. Why?
Unfortunately, other people will also be involved. This is, after all, a representative government with separation of powers. Your scheme will be touched and affected by lobbyists, legislators, bureaucrats, and judges. Then it will be imposed on a group of people, many of whom will NOT cheerfully cooperate because they do NOT appreciate your brilliance.
* Maybe even you believe you know the best way to solve a particular societal problem with a better organizational solution.
* Perhaps you admire and support a particular candidate who claims he has just the right incentive, program, or regulation that will do the trick.
Well, if you ever catch yourself (or another person), making such a pronouncement, then you can KNOW that either you (or they) are wrong.
You see . . .
When you have "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," YOUR "grand design" won't work. Why?
Unfortunately, other people will also be involved. This is, after all, a representative government with separation of powers. Your scheme will be touched and affected by lobbyists, legislators, bureaucrats, and judges. Then it will be imposed on a group of people, many of whom will NOT cheerfully cooperate because they do NOT appreciate your brilliance.
By failing to appreciate these events, you have fallen victim to the Dictator Fallacy.
The Dictator Fallacy is the belief that any law or program will be implemented in just the way you intended -- as if you were the king.
Your more perfect vision could only be actualized if you were the czar. Yet to want that power would be to denounce the Constitutional principles and representative democracy that you claim to adore.
There are at least six major ways your plan will go awry.
First, the legislative branch will have its say. They'll wheel and deal. They'll modify your perfect design. Senator Foghorn will secure a new federal building in return for his vote, while hordes of lobbyists will secure exemptions, loopholes, or extra benefits for their clients.
Second, the executive branch will then interpret the law. They will mangle your plan to fit their political goals. In accordance with The Slippery Slope Law of The State, bureaucrats...
Third, the Courts will get in on the act too, forbidding some aspects of your design, while permitting other things you never intended. By this point, you might not even recognize your plan.
Fourth, the People will then react to the law. Some will comply; others will resist. Nearly everyone will look for loopholes. Attorneys, accountants, and consultants of all stripes will have a new industry, vested in navigating around your law to the greatest degree possible.
Fifth, the real "unintended consequences" of your plan will begin to manifest themselves. You may even discover what most policymakers experience; your proposal will boomerang, worsening the very problem you presumed to fix. Consider these examples . . .
* laws to curb narcotic use will entangle children in the violent, black-market drug trade
* fancy plans to restrict gun ownership will coincide with an increase in burglaries in your own neighborhood
Reality will laugh at your good intentions.
And here, we must go down an important rabbit trail. When our program fails, it is easy to be blind to the obvious. The very normal human reaction is to assume that things would've worked better if only our intelligent design had been followed -- that our uniquely brilliant scheme could've made The State more efficient and effective. We . . .
* bemoan the fact that legislators, bureaucrats, and judges mutilated our plans.
* complain that the people weren't made to see how this was for their own good.
Now, hopefully, it's evident. We'll NEVER witness your wonderful, pet plans, materialize. The only way that your more perfect vision could possibly have been implemented, was if YOU were the king.
Sixth, comes the most brutal blow of all.
The power you give a politician you love to do something you favor, is . . .
. . . the same power that people you abhor will use to do things you oppose.
Since you aren't a dictator you simply have to accept that officeholders change. Partisan majorities switch hands. The power you wanted to give to good people will always end up in the hands of bad people.
But for too many would-be dictators, "unintended consequences" simply means that they neverintended for their opposition to acquire power again.
This is the trap that snares naive, do-gooders who . . .
* fantasize about what they would do if they were the boss, while forgetting that they supposedly despise dictators.
* fail to take into account that the people who really run things aren't as brilliant or purely motivated as they are.
Do you ever support expanding The State because you imagine that a larger State would do things the way you would do them if you were in charge? If so, then you have made yourself (and others) a victim of the Dictator Fallacy.
The Dictator Fallacy means that no matter how well-intentioned you are, no matter how good you think your idea is, your new regulation or initiative to solve a problem won't . . .
* be passed by you,
* administered by you, or
* adjudicated by you.
Nor will . . .
* everyone cooperate with your scheme.
* the new powers you create always be controlled by people you like.
You must choose . . .
* A limited constitutional republic, or . . .
* The horrifying Frankenstein creations that result from The Dictator Fallacy.
HT: The concept of the "Dictator Syndrome" was created by Downsize DC co-founder, Harry Browne, in chapter five of his 1995 book, "Why Government Doesn't Work." That chapter was titled, "If You Were King (The Dictator Syndrome)." http://harrybrowne.org
-----
This message is an educational service of the Downsize DC Foundation. Please share it with others. Please tell your friends that they can receive similar material in the future by subscribing to our free email newsletter, The Downsizer-Dispatch.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Jim Babka. Permission to distribute this article for educational purposes is granted, if done with attribution to the author and the Downsize DC Foundation. Permission to use for commercial purposes is denied.
The Dictator Fallacy is the belief that any law or program will be implemented in just the way you intended -- as if you were the king.
Your more perfect vision could only be actualized if you were the czar. Yet to want that power would be to denounce the Constitutional principles and representative democracy that you claim to adore.
There are at least six major ways your plan will go awry.
First, the legislative branch will have its say. They'll wheel and deal. They'll modify your perfect design. Senator Foghorn will secure a new federal building in return for his vote, while hordes of lobbyists will secure exemptions, loopholes, or extra benefits for their clients.
Second, the executive branch will then interpret the law. They will mangle your plan to fit their political goals. In accordance with The Slippery Slope Law of The State, bureaucrats...
Third, the Courts will get in on the act too, forbidding some aspects of your design, while permitting other things you never intended. By this point, you might not even recognize your plan.
Fourth, the People will then react to the law. Some will comply; others will resist. Nearly everyone will look for loopholes. Attorneys, accountants, and consultants of all stripes will have a new industry, vested in navigating around your law to the greatest degree possible.
Fifth, the real "unintended consequences" of your plan will begin to manifest themselves. You may even discover what most policymakers experience; your proposal will boomerang, worsening the very problem you presumed to fix. Consider these examples . . .
* laws to curb narcotic use will entangle children in the violent, black-market drug trade
* fancy plans to restrict gun ownership will coincide with an increase in burglaries in your own neighborhood
Reality will laugh at your good intentions.
And here, we must go down an important rabbit trail. When our program fails, it is easy to be blind to the obvious. The very normal human reaction is to assume that things would've worked better if only our intelligent design had been followed -- that our uniquely brilliant scheme could've made The State more efficient and effective. We . . .
* bemoan the fact that legislators, bureaucrats, and judges mutilated our plans.
* complain that the people weren't made to see how this was for their own good.
Now, hopefully, it's evident. We'll NEVER witness your wonderful, pet plans, materialize. The only way that your more perfect vision could possibly have been implemented, was if YOU were the king.
Sixth, comes the most brutal blow of all.
The power you give a politician you love to do something you favor, is . . .
. . . the same power that people you abhor will use to do things you oppose.
Since you aren't a dictator you simply have to accept that officeholders change. Partisan majorities switch hands. The power you wanted to give to good people will always end up in the hands of bad people.
But for too many would-be dictators, "unintended consequences" simply means that they neverintended for their opposition to acquire power again.
This is the trap that snares naive, do-gooders who . . .
* fantasize about what they would do if they were the boss, while forgetting that they supposedly despise dictators.
* fail to take into account that the people who really run things aren't as brilliant or purely motivated as they are.
Do you ever support expanding The State because you imagine that a larger State would do things the way you would do them if you were in charge? If so, then you have made yourself (and others) a victim of the Dictator Fallacy.
The Dictator Fallacy means that no matter how well-intentioned you are, no matter how good you think your idea is, your new regulation or initiative to solve a problem won't . . .
* be passed by you,
* administered by you, or
* adjudicated by you.
Nor will . . .
* everyone cooperate with your scheme.
* the new powers you create always be controlled by people you like.
You must choose . . .
* A limited constitutional republic, or . . .
* The horrifying Frankenstein creations that result from The Dictator Fallacy.
HT: The concept of the "Dictator Syndrome" was created by Downsize DC co-founder, Harry Browne, in chapter five of his 1995 book, "Why Government Doesn't Work." That chapter was titled, "If You Were King (The Dictator Syndrome)." http://harrybrowne.org
-----
This message is an educational service of the Downsize DC Foundation. Please share it with others. Please tell your friends that they can receive similar material in the future by subscribing to our free email newsletter, The Downsizer-Dispatch.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Jim Babka. Permission to distribute this article for educational purposes is granted, if done with attribution to the author and the Downsize DC Foundation. Permission to use for commercial purposes is denied.
A Major Battle
I would agree that a major battle is being fought and the war is going on between governments as the requirements are flowing from the federal to state to county to cities - as moneys dry up the orders from on high will just be ignored IMO. This will eventually back up to the Federal government and the regulating agencies as one lower government at a time just treats the laws and regulations as void and null.
The Central collective minded Federal government will then be required to make some choices - enforce the laws through legal actions in courts - ignore the lower government’s actions - declare martial law dismissing legislatures and governors as Lincoln did after the civil war?
The question will be - what will the citizens of the many states do - reject the Central collective and refuse to pay taxes - force the legislatures to hold an Article V convention to remove the Central collective governments’ powers? The last option is what the Founders spoke of as the last resort and that is to reject and destroy the usurped government by force of arms.
In any case and any possible scenario the people must use some or any of the above options to correct the usurpation. The nation and the Republic has been raped and ruined and is due justice and punishment of the violators. IMO
The Central collective minded Federal government will then be required to make some choices - enforce the laws through legal actions in courts - ignore the lower government’s actions - declare martial law dismissing legislatures and governors as Lincoln did after the civil war?
The question will be - what will the citizens of the many states do - reject the Central collective and refuse to pay taxes - force the legislatures to hold an Article V convention to remove the Central collective governments’ powers? The last option is what the Founders spoke of as the last resort and that is to reject and destroy the usurped government by force of arms.
In any case and any possible scenario the people must use some or any of the above options to correct the usurpation. The nation and the Republic has been raped and ruined and is due justice and punishment of the violators. IMO
