US Amendment XVII - Election of Senators by popular vote

[DennisLeeWilson]

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo  (Original Message) Sent: 4/6/2003 7:52 PM

AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution was modified by Amendment 17.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
 

[DennisLeeWilson]

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 4/6/2003 7:57 PM

This amendment changed the election of Senators from the various State Legislatures to a popularity vote of the citizens of the State. This amendment contributed to the "democratization" of the Republic and should be repealed, or in a new Constitution, explicitly forbidden.

[DennisLeeWilson]

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 6/26/2003 4:05 PM

The following article presents good reasons for the repeal/exclusion of the 17th Amendment:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo34.html
 

More Fantasies From Claremont
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The Claremont Institute has joined with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the far left of American politics in demonizing Senator Trent Lott for the "sin" of trying to say something nice about a hundred-year-old man, Senator Strom Thurmond, upon his retirement from the Senate. (It’s too bad he wasn’t elected president in 1948, Senator Lott said to his aged and ailing, wheelchair-bound colleague).

In a snotty article in the Institute’s December 12 weekly newsletter one Ken Masugi describes Senator Lott as "vacant," "rapacious," "twisted," "failed," "stupid," "mean spirited," "silly," and "lost," and joins the "Reverend" Sharpton and other enemies of the Republican Party in calling for Senator Lott to resign.

Sometimes it seems that everything to come out of the Claremont Institute is a fabrication or a fantasy. For example, the very first sentence of Masugi’s tirade (his specialty) is: "The Founders’ purpose in establishing the United States Senate was to elevate the characters of its members so that, following deliberation, it could act on behalf of the whole nation. This is the real, constitutional issue in the furor concerning would-be Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott." And this statement is a pure fabrication.

Masugi has his American history exactly backwards. When the founding fathers created the U.S. Senate in the Constitution they provided that senators were to be elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote. It wasn’t until the Seventeenth Amendment was passed in 1913 that U.S. senators were popularly elected.

The reason for this was that the election of senators by their own state legislatures was seen to be one of the bedrocks of states’ rights. Senators were expected to defend and promote the rights of the citizens of their own states and protect them from encroachments by the federal government – just the opposite of Masugi’s theory. This was seen as an important roadblock to the growth of any welfare/redistributionist state. By answering only to their own state legislature, senators were placed above national special-interest groups, the media, and even political parties. Since each piece of legislation, all judicial appointees, and all top executive appointments had to be approved by the senate, senators were effectively given the power to veto all three branches of the federal government. Each senator had a hand in federal affairs, and was held accountable by the people of his own state. This was all lost with the Seventeenth Amendment, though, so that today senators are pressured primarily by big campaign donors, the (liberal) media, special-interest groups, and opinion polls. The adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment was another nail in the coffin of states’ rights that led to the explosion of governmental power that has occurred ever since.

Masugi invokes the name of James Madison to support his a-historical theory, but Madison’s own words clearly repudiate the Masugi/Claremont position. In Federalist #39 the Father of the Constitution wrote that the establishment of the constitutional order was to come from the assent of the people "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." The "whole nation" theory of constitutionalism is a myth that has been perpetrated by many decades in order to rationalize the centralization of governmental power. The Claremont Institute is a shameless promoter of this myth, and of the bloated federal leviathan that the myth serves to prop up.

It was the election of U.S. senators by the state legislatures that benefited the "whole nation" by placing an important restraint on the powers of the central government. The whole purpose of the Constitution, Madison wrote in Federalist #10, was to restrain "the violence of faction," and this was best achieved by limiting the powers of the central state in this and numerous other ways.

Masugi seems to have a naïve, child’s view of government as he drones on about how politicians are expected to act in a "public-spirited" manner and enact policies that are "good for the nation as a whole" as they serve the "public interest." As I said, nearly everything to come out of the Claremont Institute seems to be a fantasy or fabrication.

Several hundred years ago state tyranny was rationalized by court historians who waxed eloquently about the "divine right of kings." With the advent of democracy "the public interest" replaced the "divine right of kings" as the supposed justification for state tyranny. Claremont’s court historians tirelessly promote this childish but dangerous view of government.

December 13, 2002
Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail: TDilo@aol.com ] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com

Thomas DiLorenzo Archives

[DennisLeeWilson]

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 7/6/2003 3:18 PM

The 17th amendment brought us direct election of senators -- breaking the veto power of the state legislatures over the enactments and growth of the central government.

[DennisLeeWilson]

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 4/19/2004 4:12 PM

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

The fraudulent ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Bill Benson has more than 17,000 certified documents which will pass any court test for admissibility that proves beyond any doubt that the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified. Few know that Mr. Benson also researched the ratification the Seventeenth Amendment at the same time as he did the Sixteenth because they were voted on in the individual states almost at the same time.

This writer knows because I have Benson's book of proof and have verified his findings at both the California State Archives and the National Archives in Washington, DC by on site visits. The fraud involved in the Seventeenth is far more egregious than the Sixteenth. Seeing is believing and I have seen the old historical documents in Mr. Benson's book as has constitutional attorney Lowell Becraft, Jr. There is no question that both amendments are laws that do not exist.

Again, it is imperative that Americans understand the amendment process in order to understand the massive legal problems with a fraudulently ratified amendment. How our laws are made is the foundation and an important interview by Mr. Becraft on the Sixteenth Amendment fraud is quite detailed. It is equally important to understand the genius of separation of powers and state's suffrage rights which were destroyed by the fraudulent ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. This must be reversed before the federal machine implements its final stages to destroy this sovereign Republic.

Now we get down to the crux of the matter: Since the Seventeenth Amendment clearly was never ratified, the Congress has not had a lawfully seated U.S. Senate since 1913. This is an indisputable legal fact. Naturally, it represents a conundrum that no one in Washington, DC or the federal courts has the guts to address because the implications are horrendous.

There is no way to call back any monies expended through bills approved by the Senate since 1913. However, all U.S. Senators seated since 1913 have served under a law that does not exist, therefore, they are entitled to no compensation and all retired counterfeit U.S. Senators must be stripped of any pension or retirement.

Going back to the immediate problem of this 'Law of the Sea' treaty: These united States of America unlawfully entered the UN in 1945. Since that Senate body was serving illegally, our participation in the UN is also unlawful and null and void. I can hear the collective gasp already. But, I would ask each and every American one simple question: Are we a nation of laws or lies? We cannot be both and we will not survive the coming totalitarian fist unless We the People demand the right thing be done calmly, sysematically and for the good of our Republic.

What can be done?

First, there is no remedy at the federal level. Second, any American running for the U.S. Senate should obtain Mr. Benson's 'Proof the 17th Amendment Was Never Ratified.' Bill will take the time to give any candidate the explicit details of the fraud and that candidate must have the integrity to announce that they cannot run for office under a law that does not exist because it is not only morally dishonest, but the fraud has to be exposed and dealt with.

The solution lies at the state level. The hard evidence must be presented to members of your state legislature by a credible group of citizens. Then you inform your state senator, delegate, assembly person or representative that you demand hearings on this fraud and that the governor be fully briefed on what must be done. If even one state legislature appointed two U.S. Senators to serve in Washington, DC and sent them there, it would force the issue out into the open and cause the necessary confrontation. I pray I live to see the day.

I would recommend the State of Maryland because to my knowledge, that legislature has a respectable number of true constitutionalists serving in office that have the backbone to stand up for the truth. There might be a chance for the State of New Hampshire because I know there are some fine men serving in office there. One state is all that's needed to blow this fraud wide open and the process would begin to correct this huge lie bringing such misery to our people.

If the State of Maryland or New Hampshire is happy with their two unlawfully 'elected' U.S. Senators, they can still appoint those existing counterfeit Senators to represent their respective states in Congress. If, on the other hand, they aren't happy with the two individuals who currently serve under a law that doesn't exist, they can get rid of them using the Constitution. Can we all just get giddy at the thought of booting counterfeit Senators like Boxer, Feinstein, Clinton and Schumer right out of office?

Can't be done? That is the very defeatist attitude that the Masters of the Game depend on and it will keep US from taking back America. All treaties since 1945 are null and void. Translated this means that America is no longer part of the UN nor are We the People to be raped any longer by paying billions to this private communist organization. Also null and void is NAFTA and GATT. Do I have your attention now?

Freedom cannot be attained and retained by observers.

Freedom gained and kept can only be achieved with a warrior class who will stand firm and put action behind their words.

Will you be part of the warrior class that forces your state legislature to recognize the fraud of the Seventeenth Amendment?

How bad do you want to get America out of the UN? There is no other way but at the state level.

Success in just one state will not only clean out the nest of anti-American individuals now serving in the Senate, it will also nullify all these insidious treaties destroying our sovereignty. One thing is for certain: continuing with billboards and membership drives by some organizations to 'Get the US out of the UN' is as effective as spitting into the wind. It hasn't worked for 30 years and it won't work in the next 30 years. It has to come from the state legislatures and they will only buckle under by massive pressure from We the People. The clock is ticking.

© 2004 Devvy Kidd - All Rights Reserved
 

[DennisLeeWilson]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/scalia-seventeenth/

Radical Right-Wing Agenda   By Ian Millhiser on Nov 15th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Jumps On The Anti-Seventeenth Amendment Bandwagon

One of the most bizarre developments of the last several months is the growing right-wing calls to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, the provision of the Constitution that empowers voters — as opposed to state legislatures — to elect their senators. On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia joined Senator-elect Mike Lee (R-UT) and Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) in opposing the century-old amendment:

• Scalia called the writing of the Constitution “providential,” and the birth of political science.
  
  “There’s very little that I would change,” he said. “I would change it back to what they wrote, in some respects. The 17th Amendment has changed things enormously.”
  
  That amendment allowed for U.S. Senators to be elected by the people, rather than by individual state legislatures.
  
  “We changed that in a burst of progressivism in 1913, and you can trace the decline of so-called states’ rights throughout the rest of the 20th century. So, don’t mess with the Constitution.“

Justice Scalia’s use of extremist “states’ rights” rhetoric is an ominous sign. Although Scalia has a well-deserved reputation as an ultra-conservative, his record on federal/state power issues is surprisingly sensible. Indeed, his concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich could have been written as a blueprint for why President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

It’s puzzling why Scalia, or anyone else for that matter, would suddenly take a swipe at this entirely uncontroversial amendment — although the Wonk Room offers one possible explanation. Before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted, corporate interest groups were able to lean on state lawmakers and thus effectively buy U.S. Senate seats. In other words, repealing the Seventeenth Amendment “would be like Citizens United on steroids.”

Showing 147 comments