Judge Napolitano: the 17th Amendment is Unconstiutional [Archive]

View Full Version : Judge Napolitano: the 17th Amendment is Unconstiutional

bobbyw24

11-03-2010, 11:17 AM

Napolitano: "The 17th Amendment is the only part of the Constitution that is unconstitutional"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011020004

RCA

11-03-2010, 11:19 AM

All amendments are constitutional Judge.

FrankRep

11-03-2010, 11:23 AM

Tea Party Wants to Dump 17th Amendment? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3689-tea-party-wants-to-dump-17th-amendment)

There is a sizable bloc of Tea Party supporters calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 17th Amendment establishes direct, popular election of U.S. Senators, superseding Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2 which empowered state legislatures to elect senators. by Joe Wolverton II

Should We Repeal the 17th Amendment? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3229-should-we-repeal-the-17th-amendment)

Representative Louie Golmert of Texas has recently proposed that United States senators be elected as they once were, by the legislatures of the states. This would require a repeal of the 17th Amendment, which requires direct election of senators by the people. by Bruce Walker

Repeal Direct Election of Senators? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5051-repeal-direct-election-of-senators)

Mike Lee, the Republican nominee for the Senate in the Utah election this year, supports repealing the 17th Amendment. “People would be better off if senators, when they deliver their messages to Washington, remember the sovereignty of the state,” Lee told reporters recently. by Bruce Walker

TonySutton

11-03-2010, 11:24 AM

All amendments are constitutional Judge.

Watch the video to better understand what he is saying.

Brooklyn Red Leg

11-03-2010, 11:28 AM

All amendments are constitutional Judge.

Actually, the 16th and 17th Amendments may not have been properly ratified. Thus, they would be by definition unConstitutional.

RonPaulCult

11-03-2010, 12:40 PM

All amendments are constitutional Judge.

Exactly! I watched this whole video and I see what he is saying. I probably even agree with him about it. But he can't call something that is currently in the constitution unconstitutional. He sounds like an idiot. Just say it doesn't belong in the constitution.

FrankRep

11-03-2010, 12:55 PM

All amendments are constitutional Judge.

Judge Napolitano is correct. Watch the video.

osan

11-03-2010, 02:17 PM

Napolitano: "The 17th Amendment is the only part of the Constitution that is unconstitutional"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011020004 (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011020004)

BuhWHA?!

How can a provision of the Constitution be unconstitutional?

Feeding the Abscess

11-03-2010, 02:35 PM

FrankRep

11-03-2010, 02:38 PM

BuhWHA?!

How can a provision of the Constitution be unconstitutional?

Yes, actually. Listen to Judge Napolitano.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011020004

Modern_Matthew

11-03-2010, 02:46 PM

Good luck getting Rand Paul appointed without the 17th Amendment. :rolleyes:

Feeding the Abscess

11-03-2010, 02:50 PM

FrankRep

11-03-2010, 03:06 PM

Good luck getting Rand Paul appointed without the 17th Amendment. :rolleyes:
Good State Representatives would want a States Rights guy like Rand to represent the state.

tpreitzel

11-03-2010, 03:09 PM

Considering Rand is a states' rights guy, you very likely could get him in without the 17th Amendment.

Furthermore, more power would be concentrated locally, and state politicians would be more important.

State politicians might actually have a voice in the US Congress again as constitutionally required and explained in the Federalist Papers.

Acala

11-03-2010, 03:23 PM

roho76

11-03-2010, 03:41 PM

State politicians might actually have a voice in the US Congress again as constitutionally required and explained in the Federalist Papers.

I agree. Isn't it precedent that no laws can supersede those that come before it? It specifically says that the Senators are to be chosen by the state legislators. Whereas the 16th Amendment doesn't create any new powers to tax so is not in violation of the constitutionality of apportioned taxes.

Feeding the Abscess

11-03-2010, 03:48 PM

Assuming it was properly ratified, it is not unconstitutional. I watched the video and he is just being cute with his language.

The Constitution is, by its own terms, amendable. Any changes made pursuant to that provision become part of the Constitution - even if they are stupid and inconsistent with the ideas of the Founders.

Thank you for making the living Constitution argument, rendering it null and void.

Might as well say that if Communism took hold in America that it is acceptable and American, since that is what Americans wanted.

You full well know that declaring something unconstitutional means it is not in line with Original Intent. It's not "being cute" with language.

tpreitzel

11-03-2010, 04:20 PM

Instead of the petty BS criteria we use to elect congressmen, we need to add this one very important question:

If you are elected as a congressmen, would you insist any nominees to the Supreme Court adhere to the founder's original intent as explained in the Federalist Papers in cases of dispute over interpretation of the US Constitution?

Promontorium

11-03-2010, 04:22 PM

Thank you for making the living Constitution argument, rendering it null and void.

Might as well say that if Communism took hold in America that it is acceptable and American, since that is what Americans wanted.

You full well know that declaring something unconstitutional means it is not in line with Original Intent. It's not "being cute" with language.

I disagree. If you use the term "unconstitutional" to refer to everything you think shouldn't be in the Constitution, even if it clearly is in there, you dilute the definition.

The US Constitution by its design affords change, any legal change to the Constitution is inherently "Constitutional" it might be contradictory, which often is by design, it might be irrational, or evil, or "communist", but the Constitution puts very few limits on what can be altered, making any alteration not restricted "Constitional".

As far as I can tell here is what the Constition restricts from being changed:

"no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." (Article 5 "Amendments")

That's it.

If Congress passed a reinstituted slavery Amendment, it'd be "Constitutional".

This is why my constitution forbids any Amendment that limits anyone's rights or expands on the federal government's authority. The US Constitution failed to place such restrictions and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. Perhaps a new Amendment should be passed to limit future Amendments.

Acala

11-03-2010, 04:28 PM

Thank you for making the living Constitution argument, rendering it null and void.

You don't understand the "living Constitution" argument. The living Constitution argument is that the Constitution AS WRITTEN needs to be "interpreted" by judges to reflect changes in the country and the world. The living Constitution argument holds that amendment is not necessary and that the Constitution can be "adjusted" by court rulings.

Might as well say that if Communism took hold in America that it is acceptable and American, since that is what Americans wanted.

I didn't say anything about what is acceptable. The issue is what is Constitutional. If the Constitution were amended in accordance with its own terms to enforce some kind of communist economic system, then, yes, it would be Constitutional. It would not be acceptable to me, but that wasn't the question.

You full well know that declaring something unconstitutional means it is not in line with Original Intent. It's not "being cute" with language.

Saying that something is unconstitutional means that it is in conflict with, and overruled by or unauthorized by, the provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution itself cannot be unconstitutional. Lawful amendments are part of the Constitution.

Original intent is used to understand the meaning of the original provisions of the Constitution if they are not clear. If the Constitution is amended as provided by the terms of the Constitution itself, then the amendment becomes part of the Constitution, but the meaning of the amendment, if unclear, would be interpreted with the help of the intent of the people who drafted and voted in favor of the amendment.

So I was actually being charitable when I said the Judge was being cute. He was actually being flat out wrong. The 17th amendment, assuming it was ratified in compliance with the Constitution, is PART of the Constitution. It is an ill-advised and undesirable part, but a part nonetheless. The Constitution itself cannot be unconstitutional.

Omphfullas Zamboni

11-03-2010, 04:33 PM

I like extra-constitutional to describe sections of the Constitution which are not in accordance with the philosophy of Original Intent.

tpreitzel

11-03-2010, 04:35 PM

If the Constitution is amended as provided by the terms of the Constitution itself, then the amendment becomes part of the Constitution, but the meaning of the amendment, if unclear, would be interpreted with the help of the intent of the people who drafted and voted in favor of the amendment.

LOL ... ;) You're OUT there ... in left field ... alright. :)

Acala

11-03-2010, 04:48 PM

LOL ... ;) You're OUT there ... in left field ... alright. :)

Standard statutory interpretation. Someone passes a law, and an amendment to the Constitution is simply passing a law at the highest level, and the intent of those who passed the law is consulted to resolve uncertainty about the meaning. You may not like it or agree with it, but that is how courts do it. It is called legislative intent. Lawyers spend vast amounts of time sifting through the Congressional record looking for comments by legislators and in committee reports that shed light on the provision in dispute trying to determine what the people who voted for the law thought it meant.

In the case of the original Constitution, the comments of the drafters in, for example, the Federalist Papers, are consulted for legislative intent, as are comments in the various ratifying conventions. In his recent, and excellent book on Nullification, Tom Woods cites comments from ratifying conventions in this way.

Accordingly, an ambiguity in an amendment passed in 1913 would be clarified by looking into the legislative history surrounding the passage of that amendment, not the intent of the Founders. Again, you may not like it, but that is how it is done.

robert9712000

11-03-2010, 04:54 PM

Why are people being petty about the judge saying amendment is unconstitutional .

Of coarse if its in the constitution its constitutional by a strict definition of the word but its pretty obvious hes saying that it doesnt follow the original intent and purpose the forefathers were trying to establish

tpreitzel

11-03-2010, 04:54 PM

Standard statutory interpretation. Someone passes a law, and an amendment to the Constitution is simply passing a law at the highest level, and the intent of those who passed the law is consulted to resolve uncertainty about the meaning. You may not like it or agree with it, but that is how courts do it.

Frankly, I don't give a damn how the "courts do it". I give a damn that the courts adhere to the original intent as expressed by the founders in the Federalist Papers. ;)

It is called legislative intent. Lawyers spend vast amounts of time sifting through the Congressional record looking for comments by legislators and in committee reports that shed light on the provision in dispute trying to determine what the people who voted for the law thought it meant.

In the case of the original Constitution, the comments of the drafters in, for example, the Federalist Papers, are consulted for legislative intent, as are comments in the various ratifying conventions. In his recent, and excellent book on Nullification, Tom Woods cites comments from ratifying conventions in this way. Legislative intent? Oh, wow. How about strictly adhering to Article 1, Section 8 for "legislative intent" at the federal level. ;) From your comments, it's absolutely no wonder why this country is in a mess.

Fox McCloud

11-03-2010, 05:05 PM

I've wanted to see this overturned for a long time; it would balance states desires and the people's general desires...sure, people elect the local representatives too, but they'll still be a bit more focused on what's in the best interest of their state as opposed to thinking purely federal, as our current senators do.

The second half of this should be restoring the 50-60,000 people per Congressional district.

Acala

11-03-2010, 05:11 PM

Acala

11-03-2010, 05:19 PM

Frankly, I don't give a damn how the "courts do it". I give a damn that the courts adhere to the original intent as expressed by the founders in the Federalist Papers. ;)

And their original intent was that the Constitution could be changed by the specified amendment process. To the extent the 17th amendment followed the procedures the Founders deliberately and carefully put in the Constitution, the 17th amendment became part of the Constitution. To argue that following the provided amendment procedure somehow does NOT result in changing the Constitution is itself not following the original intent of the Founders because their clear intent was for the Constitution to be changeable.

Legislative intent? Oh, wow. How about strictly adhering to Article 1, Section 8 for "legislative intent" at the federal level. ;)

I'm all for limiting Federal power to those enumerated. But, just for the sake of pissing you off, it was the Original Intent of the Founders that new powers could be added to Article 1, Section 8 by the specified amendment process and those new powers would be part of the Constitution, and hence NOT unconstitutional, no matter how much they sucked.

tpreitzel

11-03-2010, 05:20 PM

And their original intent was that the Constitution could be changed by the specified amendment process. To the extent the 17th amendment followed the procedures the Founders deliberately and carefully put in the Constitution, the 17th amendment became part of the Constitution. To argue that following the provided amendment procedure somehow does NOT result in changing the Constitution is itself not following the original intent of the Founders because their clear intent was for the Constitution to be changeable.

I'm all for limiting Federal power to those enumerated. But, just for the sake of pissing you off, it was the Original Intent of the Founders that new powers could be added to Article 1, Section 8 by the specified amendment process and those new powers would be part of the Constitution, and hence NOT unconstitutional, no matter how much they sucked.

Some quotations of our founders pertinent to this idea:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
— George Washington, Farewell Address (http://www.constitution.org/gw/fare_add.htm), 1796

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." - James Madison

Now, according to Jefferson, the probable interpretation in which the US Constitution was passed specifically stresses senators appointed by the state legislatures (Federalist Papers). No it was NOT the founders' intent to allow unfettered, i.e. an amendment process contrary to the original intent contained in the Federalist Papers, regardless of your robotic assertion otherwise. Can you even see home plate? ;)

AxisMundi

11-03-2010, 05:49 PM

Napolitano: "The 17th Amendment is the only part of the Constitution that is unconstitutional"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011020004

To be frank, I could only watch a few minutes before my eyes started aching from rolling at the usual empty political rhetoric.

State Legislators assigning Senators was a left-over from the Continental Congress, and later te Congress of Confederation, when each State chose their ambassadors to represent them in the Continental Congress.

The 17th permitted MORE power at the Federal level for We the People by directly choosing our State's representative in Congress, thus eliminating back-room politics and plain nepotism rampant prior to the 17th.

FrankRep

11-03-2010, 05:54 PM

To be frank, I could only watch a few minutes before my eyes started aching from rolling at the usual empty political rhetoric.

AxisMundi is not a fan of limited government, the Constitution, and Judge Napolitano.

I'm willing to guess you don't support Ron Paul either.

Reputation: AxisMundi has a little shameless bahaviour in the past
QFT

oyarde

11-03-2010, 06:00 PM

People like Barney Frank may be a good example of why it is worth a try to go back to the way it was previously .

FrankRep

11-03-2010, 06:44 PM

Judge Napolitano rocks.

Repeal the 17th Amendment!!

AxisMundi

11-04-2010, 10:53 AM

AxisMundi is not a fan of limited government, the Constitution, and Judge Napolitano.

Just amazing how psychic everyone is on the Internets when it comes to talking about a perrson's political ideology after only a few posts.

Just to clear the air, I am indeed small government, not the "either/or" non-existant government you and your fellows advocate in the usual political hackery fashion. Some government is neccessary to provide basic civil services.

Also, considering the complete and utter lack of knowledge on the Constitution exhibited by many here, this part of your comment is also laughable.

And no, I am no fan of neocon media talking heads like the Judge, thank you.

I'm willing to guess you don't support Ron Paul either.

Then feel free to explain why I wrote in the name of a man I "don't support" on my ballot, as opposed to voting for McSame or BHO?

QFT

Good, means people are listening.

Acala

11-04-2010, 11:13 AM

Some quotations of our founders pertinent to this idea:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
— George Washington, Farewell Address (http://www.constitution.org/gw/fare_add.htm), 1796

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." - James Madison

Now, according to Jefferson, the probable interpretation in which the US Constitution was passed specifically stresses senators appointed by the state legislatures (Federalist Papers). No it was NOT the founders' intent to allow unfettered, i.e. an amendment process contrary to the original intent contained in the Federalist Papers, regardless of your robotic assertion otherwise. Can you even see home plate? ;)

Those quotes are all sound. But they do not pertain to the amendment process. They pertain to - and provide an unheeded warning about - changing the meaning of the Constitution through interpretation rather than formal amendment.

Find a quote where ANY Founder said the amendment process they included in the Constitution was itself limited in any way other than by its written terms.
I don't have my copy of the Federalist at hand or I would find quotes supporting the amendment process. I am sure they are there.

Your assertion is that there is some hidden limitation on the amendment process. You have no evidence for your assertion. The Original Intent of the Founders was that the Constitution could be changed by amendment. Any amendment made in accordance with the terms of the document becomes part of the Constitution.

The Founders were not so arrogant as to put into place a government that could not be changed by the states that created it or by the people it served. I sometimes wish they had.

Acala

11-04-2010, 11:18 AM

To be frank, I could only watch a few minutes before my eyes started aching from rolling at the usual empty political rhetoric.

State Legislators assigning Senators was a left-over from the Continental Congress, and later te Congress of Confederation, when each State chose their ambassadors to represent them in the Continental Congress.

The 17th permitted MORE power at the Federal level for We the People by directly choosing our State's representative in Congress, thus eliminating back-room politics and plain nepotism rampant prior to the 17th.

Yup. And the Founders all thought democracy was a great idea!!! :rolleyes:

erowe1

11-04-2010, 11:34 AM

Do you guys really think if an amendment were passed that legalized dictatorial power to the President that it would be Constitutional?

Yes. Of course it would be constitutional by definition.

Brooklyn Red Leg

11-04-2010, 11:45 AM

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 11:45 AM

Yes. Of course it would be constitutional by definition.

erowe1 is smarter than Judge Napolitano. :rolleyes:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011020004

erowe1

11-04-2010, 11:57 AM

erowe1 is smarter than Judge Napolitano. :rolleyes:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011020004

1) I don't see how that video relates to my comment that you replied to.
2) Even at that, nowhere in that video does Napolitano back up his claim that the 17th amendment is the only part of the Constitution that is itself unconstitutional.

Obviously, it goes against the Constitution as it was originally written. All amendments do. That's the point of amendments. But once ratified, amendments are just as constitutional as the original Constitution was. And the new version of the Constitution by which the constitutionality of anything can be measured is the version with the amendment in it.

erowe1

11-04-2010, 11:59 AM

Acala

11-04-2010, 12:10 PM

:sigh:

Do you people NOT get it that the 16th and 17th Amendments were NOT properly ratified? That MAKES them unConstitutional! The Amendment process is SPECIFIC and if its not followed EXACTLY then the proposed Amendment has not in fact been added to the Constitution.

That is not the issue here. The Judge makes no such claim in the video.

Acala

11-04-2010, 12:11 PM

1)
Obviously, it goes against the Constitution as it was originally written. All amendments do. That's the point of amendments. But once ratified, amendments are just as constitutional as the original Constitution was. And the new version of the Constitution by which the constitutionality of anything can be measured is the version with the amendment in it.

Yup.

Brooklyn Red Leg

11-04-2010, 12:11 PM

That is not the issue here. The Judge makes no such claim in the video.

The fact remains that neither one was properly ratified. That makes them unConstitutional. I understand perfectly well the arguments over Federalism and the States acting as a check against the Feds.

Acala

11-04-2010, 12:14 PM

The fact remains that neither one was properly ratified. That makes them unConstitutional.

Very possibly so. I don't know the facts well enough to have an opinion on that issue.

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 12:15 PM

The fact remains that neither one was properly ratified. That makes them unConstitutional. I understand perfectly well the arguments over Federalism and the States acting as a check against the Feds.

17th amendment appears to be properly ratified. Besides, it doesn't matter. We need to repeal it now.

Seventeenth Amendment > History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution#History)

The amendment was ratified by three states within a month (Massachusetts, Arizona, and Minnesota). However, there was no further progress until 1913, when state legislators elected in 1912 took office. Nine states ratified in January 1913, seventeen in February, four in March, and three in April. On April 8, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted when Connecticut became the 36th state (out of 48) to ratify. Louisiana also ratified the amendment in June. Utah was the only state to explicitly reject the amendment.

The Seventeenth Amendment took effect a year and a half prior to the 1914 Senate elections.

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 01:33 PM

Those quotes are all sound. But they do not pertain to the amendment process. They pertain to - and provide an unheeded warning about - changing the meaning of the Constitution through interpretation rather than formal amendment.

Find a quote where ANY Founder said the amendment process they included in the Constitution was itself limited in any way other than by its written terms.
I don't have my copy of the Federalist at hand or I would find quotes supporting the amendment process. I am sure they are there.

Your assertion is that there is some hidden limitation on the amendment process. You have no evidence for your assertion. The Original Intent of the Founders was that the Constitution could be changed by amendment. Any amendment made in accordance with the terms of the document becomes part of the Constitution.

The Founders were not so arrogant as to put into place a government that could not be changed by the states that created it or by the people it served. I sometimes wish they had.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
— George Washington, Farewell Address (http://www.constitution.org/gw/fare_add.htm), 1796

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." - James Madison

Can you comprehend English? ;) You simply WANT to believe that the amendment process contained in the US Constitution allows unfettered change of the US Constitution which these quotations clearly refute. Keep on dreamin', but I'll post the following summation of our founders remarks anyway: ;)

Unfettered misuse of the constitutional amendment process has been used to change the US Constitution by usurpation, i.e. contradicting original intent as understood at the time of constitution's adoption, and has ended in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government, i.e. a democracy instead of a republic.

Why would Madison warn us that the US Constitution "can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government" if the amendment process was intended to be unfettered? ;)

erowe1

11-04-2010, 02:21 PM

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
— George Washington, Farewell Address (http://www.constitution.org/gw/fare_add.htm), 1796

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." - James Madison

Can you comprehend English? ;) You simply WANT to believe that the amendment process contained in the US Constitution allows unfettered change of the US Constitution which these quotations clearly refute. Keep on dreamin', but I'll post the following summation of our founders remarks anyway: ;)

Unfettered misuse of the constitutional amendment process has been used to change the US Constitution by usurpation, i.e. contradicting original intent as understood at the time of constitution's adoption, and has ended in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government, i.e. a democracy instead of a republic.

Why would Madison warn us that the US Constitution "can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government" if the amendment process was intended to be unfettered? ;)

I don't see how any of those quotes support the point you're making. They all support exactly what Acala said.

None of those quotes say that the Constitution shouldn't be amended, nor even refer at all to the idea of amending it. And it would be strange to see Madision arguing against the potentiality of amending the Constitution, since the Constitution within itself provides for amending it.

Nor can those quotes be taken to mean that amendments can only be acceptable if they don't change the Constitution, since all amendments necessarily change the Constitution.

All those quotes pertain to interpreting the Constitution as it is. These quotes can all be applied just as well to the amendments, in which case they would mean that any given amendment should be interpreted according to what it meant to those who ratified it.

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 02:27 PM

None of those quotes say that the Constitution shouldn't be amended, nor even refer at all to the idea of amending it.

The founding fathers allowed the Constitution to be amended, but the amendment shouldn't contradict the Constitution itself.

erowe1

11-04-2010, 02:34 PM

The founding fathers allowed the Constitution to be amended, but the amendment shouldn't contradict the Constitution itself.

Who says that an amendment shouldn't contradict the Constitution itself?

Do you really think that every provision of the original Constitution was to be established as something that could never by any process be undone, not even by the very process of amendments that the Constitution itself ordained?

If so, then, for example, the third clause of Article 4 Section 2 could never be gotten rid of by any amendment. Is that really what you think?

Acala

11-04-2010, 02:37 PM

The founding fathers allowed the Constitution to be amended, but the amendment shouldn't contradict the Constitution itself.

If an amendment didn't contradict (say something different) than the Constitution, an amendment wouldn't be necessary.

Now if what you are saying is that the original vision of the Founders should be consulted and respected before we amend the Constitution, I agree. And the further we stray from that original vision the worse things get. BUT there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it from being amended in ways that are totally inconsistent with the vision of the Framers.

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 04:32 PM

Who says that an amendment shouldn't contradict the Constitution itself?

Face palm .... Oh, well. ;)

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 04:46 PM

If I were governor of a state, I prepare for confrontation * with the federal government and use the 17th amendment as a pretext.

Some of my first acts as governor:

1. Encourage self-sufficiency:
a. Create a state self-defense structure
b. Allow competing currencies
c. Allow possession of any type of weapon
d. Educate the populace on both federal and state constitutions via historical documents including the Federalist Papers.
e. Audit all federal tax collections by a state agency BEFORE sending those collections onto their respective federal agencies.

About a year or two later (depending on the state):
2. Ask the state legislature to appoint two senators and send them to Washington, D.C. and ask for them to be seated in place of the unconstitutionally elected senators
3. The US Congress will likely refuse to seat the appointed senators
4. Explain the discrepancy to the populace and the need to start proceedings on secession due to the lack of constitutional, i.e. state legislature, representation in the US Congress.
5. Submit the request to secede to the state legislature and approve any decision to secede from the union
6. Boot federal officials from state soil & suspend federal tax collection
7. Whatever confrontation comes next ... preparations were ongoing for at least a year or maybe two. If the federal government escalates the issue, prepare to defend to the end.

* I wouldn't seek confrontation, but I'd prepare for it

erowe1

11-04-2010, 06:14 PM

Face palm .... Oh, well. ;)

Are you really saying that you think there is no constitutional way to undo some provision that's in the Constitution, not even by the process of amendments that the Constitution itself ordains?

So, for example, the third clause of Article 4 Section 2 should still be in effect with no way to get rid of it?

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 08:05 PM

Are you really saying that you think there is no constitutional way to undo some provision that's in the Constitution, not even by the process of amendments that the Constitution itself ordains?

So, for example, the third clause of Article 4 Section 2 should still be in effect with no way to get rid of it?

Ahem ... not if the amending process violates original intent.

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

What precisely is wrong with this clause and why should it be stricken from the US Constitution? Is it the wording that bothers you and hence demands it being stricken (amended) in your opinion or should you be focusing on the laws of the states instead? :) Actually, clause 3 is general enough to apply to numerous situations, not just involuntary slavery. Should one be able to simply run away from their financial obligations without repercussions by fleeing to a neighboring state?

Did the passage of the 13th amendment violate the original intent of the US Constitution? If so, then the 13th amendment is unconstitutional. Did clause 3 even need amending by the 13th amendment? The answer is no. The amending process has simply been misused to justify the transfer of power to the federal government from the states, i.e. an illegitimate form of government. The 13th amendment is a perfect example.

erowe1

11-04-2010, 08:14 PM

Did the passage of the 13th amendment violate the original intent of Clause 3? If so, then the 13th amendment is unconstitutional. Did clause 3 even need amending by the 13th amendment? The answer is no. The amending process has simply been misused to justify the transfer of power to the federal government from the states. The 13th amendment is a perfect example.

My question wasn't about the 13th amendment. The clause in question could conceivably have been amended out of the Constitution in other ways, such as by just a simple removal of it. The 13th amendment happens to be the way it was amended in history.

But in the view you're espousing, there's no way that clause (which was a clause that took power away from the states and the people) could have been amended out at all. Because it was originally in the Constitution, no amendment could ever be allowed to remove it, since such an amendment would change the Constitution from what was originally intended for it. All future generations of Americans would be obligated to accept the government that the Constitution created without any changes in it ever to be allowed that change it from the plan intended for it by the framers of the Constitution. There is no legal process by which anything they put in the Constitution could ever be deemed a mistake and then corrected by any future generation of us the people who might wish to make such a change.

Is that not your position?

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-04-2010, 08:16 PM

Some people here seem to be confused as to what the Judge is saying and why it is a legitimate argument.

First, when the Judge says the amendment is "unconstitutional," he doesn't just mean it's a bad idea. The Judge also thinks the 16th is a bad idea, but he doesn't call it "unconstitutional" (even though many people have doubt as to whether or not it was validly ratified). When he says the 17th is unconstitutional, that's actually what he means.

Second, the Judge is not saying that the 17th amendment is unconstitutional just because it violates original intent; if that were true, no amendment would be valid, but Article V clearly allows for amendments. The whole point of amendments was to be able to change things to be different from what they were originally.

Here is the basic premise: the Constitution is a compact (i.e., contract) amongst the States and the people of the several States. The Judge is probably saying something like that it is illegitimate under historic contract law (be it natural law or common law) for a contract to be fundamentally undermined without the consent of all parties. The amending power of Article V was intended to deal with things like increases or decreases in power, other policy issues, etc., not to be able to fundamentally undermine and usurp the foundational principles upon which the contract was enacted; to change those things would require the consent of all parties (possibly through the creation of a different Constitution, i.e., a new contract).

Because the States as sovereign political entities were integral to the formation of the Constitution, and the defense of their sovereignty and inclusion in the federal government (by sending senators as their representatives) was an essential component of the entire constitutional structure, it was unconstitutional and hence illegitimate to use the amending power to remove the representation of the sovereign States (as political entities) from Congress.

Furthermore, to go beyond what the Judge basically seems to be saying, it is self-evident that the amending power is not unlimited; Article V even lists two specific things that could not be amended (one of which had a date limit on it, regarding the importation of slaves). The other thing that could not be amended is that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." The Constitution clearly says that no amendment could ever be passed that would deprive any State of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent.

What did "State" mean in that context during the 1780's? When speaking of senatorial representation, it meant state government, because it was state governments that were represented and hence had suffrage in the Senate. And when the Constitution says "equal suffrage," it's highly unlikely that the ratifiers and general public would have understood that to mean that no suffrage at all was acceptable. But the 17th amendment took away all senatorial suffrage from every state government. However, not every state legislature that was in the union in 1913 (there were 48) consented to the amendment. Thus, those states which did not consent were deprived of their suffrage rights in the Senate. Thus, the 17th amendment is unconstitutional.

In addition, there are also a number of discrepancies in the actual ratification process of the 17th. The article at http://www.devvy.com/new_site/17th_amendment_docs_march_2010.html provides a good general overview.

This is not just a theoretical issue; we're talking about usurpation on a grand scale. If the 17th amendment is unconstitutional, then all senators elected under its authority hold office illegitimately. That would mean that essentially everything the federal government has done for almost the past 100 years (all laws, treaties, appointment confirmations, subsequent constitutional amendments, etc.) have been unconstitutional because all of those things require Senate approval.

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 08:19 PM

Is that not your position?

My position is clear. If the amending process violates the original intent of the US Constitution, then the amendment is unconstitutional. PERIOD. Amendments can clarify text either through additions or subtractions, but NEVER violate original intent.

erowe1

11-04-2010, 08:24 PM

My position is clear. If the amending process violates the original intent of the US Constitution, then the amendment is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Your position is not clear.

Now you're saying that the amendment process cannot violate the Constitution. There has been no disputing that point anywhere in this thread.

But earlier it looked like you were saying an amendment is unconstitutional, not just if gets ratified via a process that violates the Constitution, but if the provisions contained within the amendment itself contradict those in the original Constitution. If this was really what you meant, then that would be totally different from what you're now saying. And it would be totally indefensible on both moral and constitutional grounds.

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 08:28 PM

Then your position is exactly what I characterized it as.

That position is utterly indefensible both on constitutional and moral grounds. The framers of the Constitution had no right to bind their posterity to the Constitution as they intended it with no means of ever altering it away from that intent. Nor does the Constitution itself suggest that it is unalterable in that way.

I support the Founding fathers and I support the Original intent of the Constitution. I'm sorry if you feel different.

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 08:28 PM

Your position is not clear.

Now you're saying that the amendment process cannot violate the Constitution. There has been no disputing that point anywhere in this thread.

But earlier it looked like you were saying an amendment is unconstitutional, not just if gets ratified via a process that violates the Constitution, but if the provisions contained within the amendment itself contradict those in the original Constitution. If this was really what you meant, then that would be totally different from what you're now saying. And it would be totally indefensible on both moral and constitutional grounds.

LOL ... What? I'm saying the amendment process cannot violate the original intent of the US Constitution which I've CONSISTENTLY stated. :)

erowe1

11-04-2010, 08:32 PM

I support the Founding fathers and I support the Original intent of the Constitution. I'm sorry if you feel different.

If you do, then you also support the view which the founding fathers held, and which they included in the Constitution, which is that if there was any point at which it was ever found to be in need of correction, there was a process by which that correction could be made via an amendment.

If you don't accept that, then you don't support the original intent of the Constitution.

erowe1

11-04-2010, 08:33 PM

LOL ... What? I'm saying the amendment process cannot violate the original intent of the US Constitution which I've CONSISTENTLY stated. :)

That's not what you've consistently stated.

But if that's all you mean, then that point has never been disputed here.

It also has nothing to do with anything Napolitano said.

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 08:34 PM

If you do, then you also support the view which the founding fathers held, and which they included in the Constitution, which is that if there was any point at which it was ever found to be in need of correction, there was a process by which that correction could be made via an amendment.

If you don't accept that, then you don't support the original intent of the Constitution.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Where did I say I was against extra amendments?

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 08:35 PM

Some people here seem to be confused as to what the Judge is saying and why it is a legitimate argument.

First, when the Judge says the amendment is "unconstitutional," he doesn't just mean it's a bad idea. The Judge also thinks the 16th is a bad idea, but he doesn't call it "unconstitutional" (even though many people have doubt as to whether or not it was validly ratified). When he says the 17th is unconstitutional, that's actually what he means.

Second, the Judge is not saying that the 17th amendment is unconstitutional just because it violates original intent; if that were true, no amendment would be valid, but Article V clearly allows for amendments.

Here is the basic premise: the Constitution is a compact (i.e., contract) amongst the States and the people of the several States. The Judge is probably saying something like that it is illegitimate under historic contract law (be it natural law or common law) for a contract to be fundamentally undermined without the consent of all parties. The amending power of Article V was intended to deal with things like increases or decreases in power, other policy issues, etc., not to be able to fundamentally undermine and usurp the foundational principles upon which the contract was enacted; to change those things would require the consent of all parties (possibly through the creation of a different Constitution, i.e., a new contract).

Because the States as sovereign political entities were integral to the formation of the Constitution, and the defense of their sovereignty and inclusion in the federal government (by sending senators as their representatives) was an essential component of the entire constitutional structure, it was unconstitutional and hence illegitimate to use the amending power to remove the representation of the sovereign States (as political entities) from Congress.

Furthermore, to go beyond what the Judge basically seems to be saying, it is self-evident that the amending power is not unlimited; Article V even lists two specific things that could not be amended (one of which had a date limit on it, regarding the importation of slaves). The other thing that could not be amended is that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." The Constitution clearly says that no amendment could ever be passed that would deprive any State of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent.

What did "State" mean in that context during the 1780's? When speaking of senatorial representation, it meant state government, because it was state governments that were represented and hence had suffrage in the Senate. And when the Constitution says "equal suffrage," it's highly unlikely that the ratifiers and general public would have understood that to mean that no suffrage at all was acceptable. But the 17th amendment took away all senatorial suffrage from every state government. However, not every state legislature that was in the union in 1913 (there were 48) consented to the amendment. Thus, those states which did not consent were deprived of their suffrage rights in the Senate. Thus, the 17th amendment is unconstitutional.

In addition, there are also a number of discrepancies in the actual ratification process of the 17th. The article at http://www.devvy.com/new_site/17th_amendment_docs_march_2010.html (http://www.devvy.com/new_site/17th_amendment_docs_march_2010.html) provides a good general overview.

This is not just a theoretical issue; we're talking about usurpation on a grand scale. If the 17th amendment is unconstitutional, then all senators elected under its authority hold office illegitimately. That would mean that essentially everything the federal government has done for almost the past 100 years (all laws, treaties, appointment confirmations, subsequent constitutional amendments, etc.) have been unconstitutional because all of those things require Senate approval.

Good. I agree with most of the comments. ;)

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 08:36 PM

That's not what you've consistently stated.

Prove it. ;)

erowe1

11-04-2010, 08:40 PM

Prove it. ;)

It's too late for me to prove it now. You edited your post #55 at 10:34 pm and added in the word "process." As the time stamps on the comments in this thread show, that was after I called you out and before you challenged me to prove it.

But if all you're saying now is that the process by which an amendment is made must not violate the Constitution, then once again, I don't dispute that.

As long as we're agreed that it is allowable to pass amendments that change the Constitution from what it was originally intended to ordain, then I don't think our positions differ.

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 08:45 PM

It's too late for me to prove it now. You edited your post #55 at 10:34 pm and added in the word "process." As the time stamps on the comments in this thread show, that was after I called you out and before you challenged me to prove it.

Oh dear Lord .. Did I amend the original intent of my post in YOUR opinion? LOL ... No, I just added more information to it, i.e. clarified it via a personal amendment. ;) <chuckle>

erowe1

11-04-2010, 08:46 PM

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Where did I say I was against extra amendments?

I'm putting words in your mouth?

Did you not reply to me and end your reply with the words "I'm sorry if you feel different"?

Were you not implying that the point of your post was to differ from the point I made in the post you were replying to, and that in that post I was expressing something contrary to the original intent of the founders? If that was your intent, then I did not put words in your mouth, but accurately represented your position. If it was not your intent, then you have yourself to blame for saying something you didn't mean.

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 08:47 PM

Oh no, you're not pulling THAT BS with me. In post #55, I simply bolded, if so, which was already THERE from the git-go along with the word, process ... sorry, you're just an poor reader and looking for any damn lame excuse ...

erowe1

11-04-2010, 08:50 PM

Oh dear Lord .. Did I amend the original intent of my post in YOUR opinion? LOL ... No, I just added more information to it, i.e. clarified it via a personal amendment. ;) <chuckle>

I'm perfectly willing to accept that I misunderstood your position.

If all you've meant to say all this time has been that the process by which an amendment is passed cannot violate the Constitution, then I have never disputed that (nor, as far as I can tell, has anyone else).

Earlier I understood you to be saying that it was always unconstitutional to pass any amendment that changed the Constitution away from something the framers originally intended for it. Had that actually been your position, it would be ludicrous. I'm glad that it was not, and don't have a problem with the fact that you edited an earlier post to make your actual position more clear.

So then, just to be clear, you do agree that it is not unconstitutional to pass an amendment that changes the Constitution away from some provision that the framers originally intended for it. Correct?

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 08:57 PM

If all you've meant to say all this time has been that the process by which an amendment is passed cannot violate the Constitution, then I have never disputed that (nor, as far as I can tell, has anyone else).

Earlier I understood you to be saying that it was always unconstitutional to pass any amendment that changed the Constitution away from something the framers originally intended for it. Had that actually been your position, it would be ludicrous. I'm glad that it was not, and don't have a problem with the fact that you edited an earlier post to make your actual position more clear.

Let's get this confusion on your part straight once and for all. You're misreading my remarks. Maybe, I shouldn't have used the word, process, in post #55. I actually agree with your latter assessment, i.e. an amendment to the US Constitution can NOT violate the original intent that the founders intended for it at the time of it's adoption. PERIOD. No, my position isn't ludicrous at all. Amendments have to be consistent with the original intent of the founders or those amendments are unconstitutional. Your position that the US Constitution can be changed willy nilly via the constitutional amendment process into anything is ludicrous and very dangerous. Actually, your position is simply a democratic view, i.e. mob rule, and a view strongly opposed by our founders.

erowe1

11-04-2010, 09:05 PM

Let's get this confusion on your part straight once and for all. You're misreading my remarks. Maybe, I shouldn't have used the word process in post #55. I actually agree with your latter assessment, i.e. an amendment to the US Constitution can NOT violate the original intent that the founders intended for it at the time of it's adoption. PERIOD. No, my position isn't ludicrous at all. Amendments have to be consistent with the original intent of the founders or those amendments are unconstitutional. Your position, that the US Constitution can be changed willy nilly via the constitutional amendment process into anything, is ludicrous and very dangerous. Actually, your position is simply a democratic view, i.e. mob rule, and a view strongly opposed by our founders.

So no we're back to where we were before. And the position that you claimed was what you were clearly saying consistently throughout this thread turns out to have been consistently unclear and consistently not what you meant. And what I thought you meant at first was what you actually did mean all along.

My position is not willy nilly democratic mob rule. It's that amendments must be passed via the process given in Article 5, complete with the limitations placed on the process there. If an amendment is passed via that process, then it is neither willy nilly, nor democratic mob rule. Article 5 provides for the original Constitution to be changed from what it originally ordained. Those things that the framers put in the Constitution (and intended to put in it) could potentially be changed to other things or removed (thus changing it from what they originally intended). That's the point of it.

To say otherwise would be both immoral and unconstitutional. The founders had no right to institute a government for their posterity for all time that could never be altered from the plan they first laid out for that government. Nor did they pretend to have such a right, as evidenced by the fact that they included Article 5 in the Constitution, whereby any point at which that Constitution later be found to be wrong could be corrected.

Of course, on any given point, we the people may or may not be wise to alter the Constitution away from what it was originally intended to contain. But the right to do that, should we choose to, is certainly ours, every bit as much as it was theirs to ratify that original Constitution in the first place (granted, the assumption that they did have such a right is a gratuitous one, but one that I'll accept for the sake of argument here).

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 09:07 PM

My position is not willy nilly democratic mob rule. It's that amendments must be passed via the process given in Article 5, complete with the limitations placed on the process there. If an amendment is passed via that process, then it is neither willy nilly, nor democratic mob rule. This Article provides for the original Constitution to be changed from what it originally ordained. That's the point of it.

To say otherwise would be both immoral and unconstitutional. The founders had no right to institute a government for their posterity for all time that could never be altered from the plan they first laid out for that government. Nor did they pretend to have such a right, as evidenced by the fact that they included Article 5 in the Constitution, whereby any point at which that Constitution later be found to be wrong could be corrected.

Wrong. It is willy nilly mob rule if the constitutional amending process in Article 5 is misused by contradicting original intent as can clearly be seen by the chaos today. ;)

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 09:13 PM

Anything else? ;)

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 09:16 PM

Anything else? ;)

Yes. Repeal the 17th Amendment!

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 09:18 PM

Yes. Repeal the 17th Amendment!

Is my position clear, Frank? :)

erowe1

11-04-2010, 09:19 PM

Wrong. It is willy nilly mob rule if the amending process in Article 5 is misused by contradicting original intent as can clearly be seen by the chaos today. ;)

So was the ratification of the original Constitution itself willy nilly mob rule?

If it was, then why was willy nilly mob rule ok for them but not us?

If it was not, then why did there exist for them some legitimate non-willy-nilly, non-mob-rule process by which they had the authority to institute that Constitution, but all future generations are to be stuck with whatever they created forever, and any change they might ever wish to make to it cannot be legitimately made, but is willy nilly mob rule?

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 09:22 PM

So was the ratification of the original Constitution itself willy nilly mob rule?

If it was, then why was willy nilly mob rule ok for them but not us?

If it was not, then why did there exist for them some legitimate non-willy-nilly, non-mob-rule process by which they had the authority to institute that Constitution, but all future generations are to be stuck with whatever they created forever, and any change they might ever wish to make to it cannot be legitimately made, but is willy nilly mob rule?

The strong arm of the law (adoption of the US Constitution) grabbed willy nilliness by the throat or at least that was the intention ... Do you want another Constitutional Convention?

Major_C_Natural

11-04-2010, 09:25 PM

Amendments have to be consistent with the original intent of the founders or those amendments are unconstitutional. Your position that the US Constitution can be changed willy nilly via the constitutional amendment process into anything is ludicrous and very dangerous. Actually, your position is simply a democratic view, i.e. mob rule, and a view strongly opposed by our founders.By your logic, most of the amendments beyond the Bill of Rights are unconstitutional. After all, the 12th amendment, for example, would be "unconstitutional" because altered the original way Vice Presidents. In fact, why have Article 5 at all? The Founding Fathers created a perfect document, right?

The 17th amendment is similar to the 12th amendment as they both alter the process of something. It is constitutional and part of the U.S. Constitution. But a bad amendment that should be repealed? I totally agree.

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 09:26 PM

By your logic, all the amendments beyond the Bill of Rights are unconstitutional. After all, the 12th amendment, for example, would be "unconstitutional" because altered the original way Vice Presidents are chosen despite the fact the process is already outlined in Article 2. In fact, why have Article 5 at all? The Founding Fathers created a perfect document, right?

The 17th amendment is similar to the 12th amendment as they both alter the process of something. It is constitutional and part of the U.S. Constitution. But a bad amendment? I totally agree.

Basically correct if those amendments violated original intent, but there's a difference between intention and process ... As I've stated, amendments via Article 5 can occur to clarify text, but NEVER alter original intent. I'd have to look closely at Article 2 again to say whether you're correct or not in this specific instance. Wouldn't life be great with just the Bill of Rights? ;)

For example, violation of original intention would be doing away with the VPOTUS all together thereby altering the form of government. Process is simply altering the manner in which the VPOTUS is selected. If the change in process alters the form of government (original intent) as did the 17th amendment, then the amendment is unconstitutional.

"They also generally agree that courts must apply original intent in order to preserve the representative democracy created by the federal Constitution." - Free Dictionary

Major_C_Natural

11-04-2010, 09:29 PM

Basically correct if those amendments violated original intent ... Wouldn't life be great with just the Bill of Rights? ;)
12th amendment?
13th amendment? (Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to keep slavery. ORIGINAL INTENT!!!!!11!1!1)
14th amendment?
15th amendment?
19th amendment? (Jefferson stated, "The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor am I.")
And so and so forth.

The original meaning of the U.S. Constitution should be followed. But original intent?

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 09:33 PM

12th amendment?
13th amendment? (Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to keep slavery. ORIGINAL INTENT!!!!!11!1!1)
14th amendment
15th amendment
18th amendment (Jefferson did not believe women should be part of politics)
And so and so forth.

You apparently missed my post on the 13th amendment. #55 ;) Very similar arguments could be made for all of these listed amendments especially the 19th. I do believe the 18th amendment the enactment of prohibition, eh?

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 09:38 PM

13th amendment? (Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to keep slavery. ORIGINAL INTENT!!!!!11!1!1)

Slavery was not the original intent of the Constitution. It was a compromise to get the southern states on board to accept the Constitution.

The 13th amendment fixed the compromise.

Major_C_Natural

11-04-2010, 09:46 PM

Slavery was not the original intent of the Constitution. It was a compromise to get the southern states on board to accept the Constitution.

The 13th amendment fixed the compromise.The Southerners who designed and signed the U.S. Constitution did not have their own original intent? They are Founding Fathers as well; you cannot pick and choose whose intent you want to use when interpreting the Constitution.

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 09:48 PM

The Southerners who designed and signed the U.S. Constitution did not have their own original intent? They are Founding Fathers as well; you cannot pick and choose whose intent you want to use when interpreting the Constitution.

The Southern Slave owners were tricked into the Constitution. :D

Slavery violates the whole idea of Liberty.

Major_C_Natural

11-04-2010, 09:54 PM

The Southern Slave owners were tricked into the Constitution. :D

Slavery violates the whole idea of Liberty.
Nice try. And yes, slavery is indeed a violation. But the U.S. Constitution did not originally allow the Federal government to ban slavery. Nor, did the individual States ended slavery themselves even though they could have.

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 09:56 PM

Nor, did the individual States ended slavery themselves.

Which doesn't mean they wouldn't have eventually.

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 09:58 PM

Anything else?

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 10:03 PM

Nice try. And yes, slavery is indeed a violation. But the U.S. Constitution did not originally allow the Federal government to ban slavery. Nor, did the individual States ended slavery themselves even though they could have.

Slavery violates Section 4;Clause 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Cla use_1:_Republican_government) of the Constitution.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

Major_C_Natural

11-04-2010, 10:17 PM

Slavery violates Section 4;Clause 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Cla use_1:_Republican_government) of the Constitution.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.The Guarantee clause requires all State governments to be "republican" but does not specify how. Hell, if we went by original intent, then slaves would be considered "property" and could not even vote since they are not a "citizen".

Which doesn't mean they wouldn't have eventually.And what makes you absolutely sure when slavery still exists modern-day?

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 10:21 PM

The Guarantee clause requires all State governments to be "republican" but does not specify how. Hell, if we went by original intent, then slaves would be considered "property" and could not even vote since they are not a "citizen".

The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Where does slavery fit in?

Major_C_Natural

11-04-2010, 10:23 PM

The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Where does slavery fit in?
The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution.

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 10:26 PM

The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution.
And people are not "Property."

Major_C_Natural

11-04-2010, 10:32 PM

And people are not "Property."
By definition, slaves are property of others.

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 10:38 PM

By definition, slaves are property of others.
I don't support Slavery, sorry. People are not "property."

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 10:41 PM

And what makes you absolutely sure when slavery still exists modern-day?

If so, then we transferred power to the federal government via the 13th amendment for no reason, right? ;)

Major_C_Natural

11-04-2010, 10:58 PM

I don't support Slavery, sorry. People are not "property."I do not support it either. That does not change the definition though.

If so, then we transferred power to the federal government via the 13th amendment for no reason, right? Institutionalized slavery is long gone in the U.S. thanks to the enforcement of the 13th amendment. It still exists institutionalized in several African counties, for example.

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 11:11 PM

I do not support it either. That does not change the definition though.

Institutionalized slavery is long gone in the U.S. thanks to the enforcement of the 13th amendment. It still exists institutionalized in several African counties, for example.

True, but this thread is referring to the US Constitution, not some arbitrary country on the African continent. ;)

Major_C_Natural

11-04-2010, 11:22 PM

True, but this thread is referring to the US Constitution, not some arbitrary country on the African continent. ;)The point is that if institutional slavery exists even to today, what would make you sure that the States chose to end slavery without the 13th amendment?

tpreitzel

11-04-2010, 11:37 PM

The point is that if institutional slavery exists even to today, what would make you sure that the States chose to end slavery without the 13th amendment?

Simple, the US wasn't some 3rd world country by 1860. IIRC, there were only 11 Confederate slave states remaining during the Civil War as most of the country was slave-free. There were still some Union slave-states. In the US, the trend was anti-slavery since the Revolutionary War, not pro-slavery so it's just a logical assumption that the remaining states of the SE US would eventually become slave-free without federal intervention.

FrankRep

11-04-2010, 11:38 PM

Back to the point.

Judge Napolitano is correct. The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.

cindy25

11-05-2010, 12:25 AM

jclay2

11-05-2010, 12:41 AM

without the 17th amendment Trey Grayson would be the next senator from Kentucky, Robert Bennett and Arlen Spector and Lisa Murkowski would be returning, and Charlie Crist would be senator elect from Florida.

You have to look at what has been lost due to the popular election of senators to realize that the scenarios you mention would be a token loss compared to the destruction on states rights.

Imperial

11-05-2010, 01:42 AM

Do you guys really think if an amendment were passed that legalized dictatorial power to the President that it would be Constitutional?

Get real. When something is deemed "unconstitutional," it is against the Founders' original intent. The belief of "anything in the Constitution is okay and Constitutional" is a living Constitution argument.

Was it not the founders' intent to add an amendment for the purposes of changing the Constitution if deemed necessary?

Your problem is with the Constitution itself in this instance rather than the founders.

AxisMundi

11-05-2010, 06:34 PM

Yup. And the Founders all thought democracy was a great idea!!! :rolleyes:

If they thought democracy was "a great idea", they wouldn't have created a Constitutional Republic. ;)

AxisMundi

11-05-2010, 06:43 PM

:sigh:

Do you people NOT get it that the 16th and 17th Amendments were NOT properly ratified? That MAKES them unConstitutional! The Amendment process is SPECIFIC and if its not followed EXACTLY then the proposed Amendment has not in fact been added to the Constitution.

Considering that the 16th and 14th were ratified by Constitutional Principles and Process, why don;t you go ahead and tell us, in your own words, why you feel they were not "properly ratified".

AxisMundi

11-05-2010, 06:59 PM

Simple, the US wasn't some 3rd world country by 1860. IIRC, there were only 11 Confederate slave states remaining during the Civil War as most of the country was slave-free. There were still some Union slave-states. In the US, the trend was anti-slavery since the Revolutionary War, not pro-slavery so it's just a logical assumption that the remaining states of the SE US would eventually become slave-free without federal intervention.

If one examines the 1860 tax rolls of NYC, one will find almost ten thousand slaves listed, men who worked the NYC harbor docks loading and unloading ships.

This is despite NY abolishing slavery in 1827.

Northern agriculture was simply unsuited to an enslaved labor force that would be idle during the winter months, thus we see them in industry and other year round labor such as dock work.

When the Confederacy was formed, it banned the importation of slaves into the Confederacy, leaving Rhode Island the largest port of entry for slaves onto this continent.

And the only reason the 13th was able to be ratified in the first palce was that Southern states were permitted to keep their civilian governments IF they voted for the Amendment, or the vote was cast by the military governor of the occupied State outright. The Amendment didn;t ahve the support neccessary otherwise.

The 13th is much more an example of an "unconstitutional amendment" than the 16th or 17th could hope to be, an amendment put in place in an attempt to justify an unjust civil war that cost more than half a million lives.

Brooklyn Red Leg

11-05-2010, 07:07 PM

AxisMundi

11-06-2010, 07:44 AM

There is research enough showing that the 16th and 17th were 'declared' to be ratified when in fact they weren't.

Please feel free to share some of that research. Thanks in advance.

FrankRep

11-06-2010, 10:07 AM

There is research enough showing that the 16th and 17th were 'declared' to be ratified when in fact they weren't.

It doesn't matter! You can whine and complain all day about it being "not properly ratified" and it won't change things.

The point is: We need to repeal it now.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-06-2010, 05:21 PM

Considering that the 16th and 14th were ratified by Constitutional Principles and Process, why don;t you go ahead and tell us, in your own words, why you feel they were not "properly ratified".

I won't comment on the 16th one way or another, but I will say that you're way off in regard to the 14th. The "ratification" of the 14th was extremely fraudulent. In fact, it was "passed" under military coercion. See some of the materials at http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14ll.htm for more information.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-06-2010, 05:22 PM

without the 17th amendment Trey Grayson would be the next senator from Kentucky, Robert Bennett and Arlen Spector and Lisa Murkowski would be returning, and Charlie Crist would be senator elect from Florida.

Your statement is counterfactual and cannot be proven. However, even if we assume it to be true, if the amendment is unconstitutional then it doesn't matter what good ends come from it.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-06-2010, 05:27 PM

Please feel free to share some of that research. Thanks in advance.

While I am again not commenting on the 16th, in post #57 I discussed some of the issues with the 17th. In that post I also provided a link to an article which discusses some of the discrepancies with the 17th's ratification process. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2966055&postcount=57

nbruno322

11-06-2010, 05:33 PM

YouTube - Judge Napolitano: Repeal the "Progressive" 17th Amendment For Better Local Representation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFUctrLsuFM)

Ninja Homer

11-06-2010, 07:03 PM

AxisMundi

11-07-2010, 08:19 AM

I won't comment on the 16th one way or another, but I will say that you're way off in regard to the 14th. The "ratification" of the 14th was extremely fraudulent. In fact, it was "passed" under military coercion. See some of the materials at http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14ll.htm for more information.

17th, not 14th. A typo, of course.

And you will note the comments I already made on the 13th, which mirrors the info on the 14th rthat you linked to.

AxisMundi

11-07-2010, 08:27 AM

While I am again not commenting on the 16th, in post #57 I discussed some of the issues with the 17th. In that post I also provided a link to an article which discusses some of the discrepancies with the 17th's ratification process. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2966055&postcount=57

I see nothing in your link suggesting anything even remotely fishy about the17th or it's ratification process.

The 17th moved the choice of Senators from the back room and underhanded dealing and politics that had crept into the process and placed the appointment of our State Representatives to Congress in the hands of We the People.

Senators remain representatives of the State at the will of the population of that State.

Southron

11-07-2010, 08:43 AM

Senators remain representatives of the State at the will of the population of that State.

Except the state governments themselves have no representation in Washington.

In fact, our Senators can continue to centralize power in D.C. and demolish any legitimate constitutional authority the states have, with very little recourse on the federal level.

AxisMundi

11-07-2010, 08:49 AM

Napolitano (and RPgrassrootsactivist) are correct... the 17th is unconstitutional. Original intent aside, it was never properly ratified, and in fact it would be impossible to ratify it unless there was first an amendment that altered Article V.

Article V, read the bold:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

We the People hire, through the democratic process, our State Legislature, our Elected Employees.

Since the 17th, We teh People also hire our State's congressional representative.

The only thing the 17th changed was to move the selection of our State's Congressional Representative out of the realms of backroom political dealing and bought seats, and placed We the People in charge.

State's Rights are preserved in the preservation of something even more important, We the People, who can now choose to hire a Senator, or remove them from office during the election process.

AxisMundi

11-07-2010, 09:01 AM

Except the state governments themselves have no representation in Washington.

In fact, our Senators can continue to centralize power in D.C. and demolish any legitimate constitutional authority the states have, with very little recourse on the federal level.

There is nothing different in that aspect from prior to the 17th and after it was ratified and became part of the Constitution.

Indeed, the South left over an increasingly powerful central federal government.

Having the State Legislature choose our representative, as opposed to us, also stinks to the highest heavens of a "government knows better than we do" mentality to me, to be frank.

The same people will seek a Senate seat, whether it is the State legislature or We the People who choose them, and they take that same mentality to Congress with them.

The difference is, now we can "fire" a Senator who isn't performing their task to our liking.

Change will come at the voting booth, and at the mail boxes of our Elected Employees in the Senate if We the People are willing to get off our collective keesters and canvas our Elected Employees.

Change will not occur in a Constitutional Convention.

AlexMerced

11-07-2010, 09:36 AM

I wouldn't say any ammendment is unconstitutional, cause that's the point of an ammmendment to make something previously unconstitional, constitutional. Although, when disagreeing with someone over how things should or shouldn't be and use of the federal government in that area, then discussing ammendment is the appropriate mechanism for the debate.

FrankRep

11-07-2010, 10:57 AM

I wouldn't say any ammendment is unconstitutional,

If the Amendment conflicts with the Constitution itself, it's unConstitutional.

tpreitzel

11-07-2010, 01:58 PM

LOL ... Personally, from the founders very own remarks, this matter is already settled. The 17th amendment is unconstitutional because it violates original intent, i.e. it changes the form of government from a republican form, i.e. state legislature appointed senators, to a democratic form, i.e. popularly elected senators. The founders of this country expressly discouraged democratic government, i.e. mob rule, in the Federalist Papers and in their private communications. Secondary issues like ratification are important, but not central to the determination of an amendment being unconstitutional. Original intent is the central issue. One could probably successfully argue that ALL amendments after the 12th are unconstitutional because they alter the form of government, i.e. they shift the balance of power away from the states to the federal government, i.e. these amendments violate the 10th, or directly alter the republican form of government like the 17th.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-07-2010, 02:20 PM

I see nothing in your link suggesting anything even remotely fishy about the17th or it's ratification process.

There are date discrepancies, missing records and, in many of the records that are there, word changes. You don't see anything even remotely problematic?

Senators remain representatives of the State at the will of the population of that State.

Senators have been turned into representatives of the people, not the State (government). There is a significant distinction between the two. The citizens of a state are not the State government.

Dripping Rain

11-07-2010, 02:25 PM

The Judge rocks and makes us think
very interesting indeed.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-07-2010, 02:35 PM

We the People hire, through the democratic process, our State Legislature, our Elected Employees.

Correct, although I wouldn't necessarily call it "democratic."

Since the 17th, We teh People also hire our State's congressional representative.

And this is the problem. If the people are electing senators, then senators are not representing the State as a government; they're representing the people in the state (in theory, anyway).

The only thing the 17th changed was to move the selection of our State's Congressional Representative out of the realms of backroom political dealing and bought seats, and placed We the People in charge.

State's Rights are preserved in the preservation of something even more important, We the People, who can now choose to hire a Senator, or remove them from office during the election process.

I understand your concern for keeping the people in authority over the government. The 17th actually reduces citizen control over government. State sovereignty is not about elevating State governments above that state's citizens; it's about preventing centralization of government (which always moves in the direction of undermining liberty).

You have to understand the political philosophy which was adhered to in the days of the founding. The States are independent nations joined into a confederated union for mutual benefit (primarily foreign relations and defense). The federal government is not some superior government that rules over the States. Bypassing these principles and removing the representation of the States without their consent violates the contractual principles upon which the Constitution was enacted.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-07-2010, 02:59 PM

Having the State Legislature choose our representative, as opposed to us, also stinks to the highest heavens of a "government knows better than we do" mentality to me, to be frank.

The same people will seek a Senate seat, whether it is the State legislature or We the People who choose them, and they take that same mentality to Congress with them.

That's not necessarily true. Running a competitive race for the Senate these days takes an extraordinary amount of money. If legislatures were electing senators, someone who wanted to be a Senator would only need to make the case for their candidacy to the legislature. Any direct appeal to the population in regard to U.S. Senate elections would likely only involve trying to get certain candidates elected to the legislature.

The end of popular election of senators would allow distinguished community leaders, who may not have massive financial resources, to be considered for Senate seats. Senators could then be chosen for their commitment to the principles adhered to by the community and the legislature, and the legislature could hold them accountable.

The difference is, now we can "fire" a Senator who isn't performing their task to our liking.

Change will come at the voting booth, and at the mail boxes of our Elected Employees in the Senate if We the People are willing to get off our collective keesters and canvas our Elected Employees.

How often does this happen? Congressional incumbents are typically re-elected due to public ignorance, vote fraud, or both. Do you think your Senator actually cares what you, as one voter, think? No matter how much you protest against their actions, unless you're some major media or political leader in your state they probably don't care because you can't do much to damage their campaign. If they lose your one vote, or even the votes of you and your family and friends, what do they care?

However, if they had to answer to a legislature composed of about one to two hundred members, in a situation where one individual legislator has the potential to influence the floor debate, they would be far more likely to care what one individual legislator thinks.

As far as how the people relate to this, you're much more likely to be able to influence your state legislators than you are any member of Congress. If you want to, you can probably call or write your legislators and get a personal response. And you, as one voter, probably can make a significant impact in a state legislative race if you expend the effort.

So compare the two situations:

1. You as one voter among millions try to influence a senator.

2. You as one voter among thousands try to influence your state legislators, who as one legislator among hundreds try to influence a senator.

In the second situation, the people and the States both have more influence, and the States retain their political sovereign control over the Senate.

robert9712000

11-07-2010, 03:56 PM

See the way i understood it and correct me if im wrong is the 17th amendment takes away a check and balance that the state had with the federal government.

The way it used to be the senate was elected through state legislator and thus gave the state some kind of check on the federal government and the house was supposed to be 1 representative per 30k people thus giving a check through the people.(and yes i know the changes in the house wasnt in the 17th amendment but it carries the same role in centralizing the feds power)

Now you have neither and the the power of the fed has been made more centralized,the fewer people in control the stronger control they have.So in my opinion the 17th took away a check the state had on the federal government.

The people still had control too over the senate,if they didnt like what the state legislature did with the senate they could vote them out.It makes it alot harder imo for parties to have control when the representation is set up the way the forefathers had it

Live_Free_Or_Die

11-07-2010, 07:17 PM

Let's stop all of the bullshit...

If the 17th Amendment is unconstitutional due to some theory it contradicts original intent then the WHOLE CONSTITUTION is unconstitutional because it contradicts the original intent of the original PERPETUAL CONSTITUTION... the Articles of Confederation.

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Now how many ways should I join other people picking apart the ridiculous argument an amendment is not constitutional?

Should I point out the first president was elected before all states ratified the Constitution?

Now I don't have a problem with it at all... throw out the unconstitutional Constitution and restore the perpetual constitution... Articles of Confederation.

A couple people pointed out the 17th Amendment was not properly ratified and some uneducated people quickly dismissed them. Educate yourself:
http://www.devvy.com/new_site/17th_amendment_docs_march_2010.html

AxisMundi

11-08-2010, 12:03 PM

There are date discrepancies, missing records and, in many of the records that are there, word changes. You don't see anything even remotely problematic?

Newp, nothing "fishy" in the least. I see a duly ratified Amendment whose purpose was to put more power in the hands of We the People, and to eliminate graft, corruption, and political nepotism in Senate appointments.

Senators have been turned into representatives of the people, not the State (government). There is a significant distinction between the two. The citizens of a state are not the State government.

Senators still represent the State, and We the People are certainly our State Governments as well. We are also our county, town, city/village governments too. All levels of government are supposed to carry out the will of We the People, and our Elected Employees serve at our sufferage.

Now, if someone can show a major shift in Senate policy, procedure, or collective mentality that had occurred during, or shortly after, 1913, then an argument could be made to repeal the 17th.

To date, what I see is merely a politically motivated distraction, a false rally cry built up around the simple fact that our federal level has indeed become too large and too powerful.

It is a distraction that wouldn't really fix anything, and could, conceivably, open the gates to more than just the 17th being eliminated and include the rapine of what remains of our Constitution.

AxisMundi

11-08-2010, 12:21 PM

PaulineDisciple

11-08-2010, 12:42 PM

If something contradicts previous portions of the constitution without the previous portion being repealed or ammended, you can say that it is unconstitutional.

robert9712000

11-08-2010, 06:19 PM

The people do have a direct say now in house and senate,but the thing i liked about the old system is there a was sort of check and balance of the state over the federal government and the people still had a say through the state legislator ),now the states have no check over the feds

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-08-2010, 10:40 PM

Newp, nothing "fishy" in the least. I see a duly ratified Amendment whose purpose was to put more power in the hands of We the People, and to eliminate graft, corruption, and political nepotism in Senate appointments.

I don't see how you cannot perceive at least somewhat of a problem if you've looked at the article at http://www.devvy.com/new_site/17th_amendment_docs_march_2010.html

Do you really think it's normal for that many records regarding something as important as a constitutional amendment to be missing from a variety of different archives?

Senators still represent the State, and We the People are certainly our State Governments as well. We are also our county, town, city/village governments too.

This is wrong. You apparently don't understand the difference between a state as a body politic and a State as a government.

All levels of government are supposed to carry out the will of We the People, and our Elected Employees serve at our sufferage.

Yes, all government is supposed to (in theory) exist at the will of and for the benefit of the people, but that doesn't mean that there is no difference between the people and the government. This was well understood in the days of America's founding, and the people believed it to be to their benefit to maintain the sovereignty of their State governments independently of direct democracy.

Now, if someone can show a major shift in Senate policy, procedure, or collective mentality that had occurred during, or shortly after, 1913, then an argument could be made to repeal the 17th.

To date, what I see is merely a politically motivated distraction, a false rally cry built up around the simple fact that our federal level has indeed become too large and too powerful.

It is a distraction that wouldn't really fix anything, and could, conceivably, open the gates to more than just the 17th being eliminated and include the rapine of what remains of our Constitution.

A lot of things changed in Congress after 1913. It started earlier than that, but rapid escalation began after 1913. You should read Thomas DiLorenzo's Hamilton's Curse and The Real Lincoln.

Furthermore, this isn't just about repeal; remember, Judge Napolitano's claim is that the amendment is unconstitutional, not just a bad idea. That's the issue I addressed at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2966055&postcount=57

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-08-2010, 10:53 PM

If the 17th Amendment is unconstitutional due to some theory it contradicts original intent then the WHOLE CONSTITUTION is unconstitutional because it contradicts the original intent of the original PERPETUAL CONSTITUTION... the Articles of Confederation.

This may or may not be true. I've thought about this issue before. The first question is, did "perpetual" in the Articles mean that a State couldn't secede from it, or did it simply mean that there was no established sunset provision for the expiration of that union? I don't know; I've heard it argued both ways, and I never researched it thoroughly enough to make a determination.

I do believe that some time ago, though, I was reading in some book (I think it may have been written in the 19th century) which explained the theory that the Constitution was able to contractually supplant the Articles because it was an exercise of popular sovereignty, i.e., the people of the states, acting via popularly-elected ratifying conventions, choosing to abolish the existing governmental structure and institute a new one.

I also want to say something about the use of the phrase "original intent" in this debate. If we take "original intent" to mean the format and power delegation of the Constitution when it was first ratified, then of course an amendment can and does alter original intent; that's the entire point of an amendment.

The argument here, though, is that an amendment cannot fundamentally undermine the contractual basis upon which the Constitution was enacted. I don't really call that "original intent."

AxisMundi

11-09-2010, 06:14 PM

I don't see how you cannot perceive at least somewhat of a problem if you've looked at the article at http://www.devvy.com/new_site/17th_amendment_docs_march_2010.html

Do you really think it's normal for that many records regarding something as important as a constitutional amendment to be missing from a variety of different archives?

This is wrong. You apparently don't understand the difference between a state as a body politic and a State as a government.

Yes, all government is supposed to (in theory) exist at the will of and for the benefit of the people, but that doesn't mean that there is no difference between the people and the government. This was well understood in the days of America's founding, and the people believed it to be to their benefit to maintain the sovereignty of their State governments independently of direct democracy.

A lot of things changed in Congress after 1913. It started earlier than that, but rapid escalation began after 1913. You should read Thomas DiLorenzo's Hamilton's Curse and The Real Lincoln.

Furthermore, this isn't just about repeal; remember, Judge Napolitano's claim is that the amendment is unconstitutional, not just a bad idea. That's the issue I addressed at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2966055&postcount=57

1. No, I do not see a problem with missing records. Are you aware of the early Congressional record keeping of our country? And what missing documents (a clear distraction), pray tell, would invalidate an Amendment that went through both Houses and was signed into Law? One would first assume that if the Amendment hasn't passed in either House, that House would have said, at the time, "Woah, hold on a tick..."

2. I am well aware of the difference between a state and a State. What you, apparently, are not aware of is that, with the ratification of the Constitution, the individual States chose to give up their individual sovereignty, and "From Many...", become "One."

Prior to the Constitution we were indeed thirteen individual, separate, and sovereign nations/countries/States, united only by a common goal and geographically linked borders. That sovereignty gave way to a central government that replaced the, for all intents and purposes in a modern example, a United Nations atmosphere.

3. I will refer you to the Preamble of the Constitution to provide an example of how you are incorrect in your statements that the g'ment is not We the People.

4. The good Judge is nothing more than a right-wing neocon empty suit sputtering inconsistent empty rhetoric looking for his Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh style 15 minutes of fame (and millions in television appearances and book deals). So you'll excuse me if I don;t take his remarks seriously.

Being a Judge doesn't make one automatically credible and infallible.

AxisMundi

11-09-2010, 06:18 PM

......A lot of things changed in Congress after 1913.

Please enumerate these changes.

Taxes? Well before 1913.

More powerful federal level? Since day one.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-09-2010, 06:43 PM

1. No, I do not see a problem with missing records. Are you aware of the early Congressional record keeping of our country?

I'm beginning to wonder if you even read the source I provided. The missing records are primarily in the state archives.

And what missing documents (a clear distraction), pray tell, would invalidate an Amendment that went through both Houses and was signed into Law?

Without the records, you don't have proof that the amendment was actually passed.

One would first assume that if the Amendment hasn't passed in either House, that House would have said, at the time, "Woah, hold on a tick..."

Don't count on it. This was almost 100 years ago; it was much easier to do things under the cover of darkness. For example, look at how the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

2. I am well aware of the difference between a state and a State. What you, apparently, are not aware of is that, with the ratification of the Constitution, the individual States chose to give up their individual sovereignty, and "From Many...", become "One."

This is completely incorrect. You lack a fundamental understanding about early American history and the political theory that was held by the founders and the population at large. What you are describing is the a-historical nationalist theory of the Union, largely invented by people like Daniel Webster and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story and based upon the flawed and largely-rejected beliefs of Alexander Hamilton.

Prior to the Constitution we were indeed thirteen individual, separate, and sovereign nations/countries/States, united only by a common goal and geographically linked borders. That sovereignty gave way to a central government that replaced the, for all intents and purposes in a modern example, a United Nations atmosphere.

Wrong again; the states maintained their sovereign nationality even after the Constitution was ratified. Alexis de Tocqueville made that very observation in his famous visit to the early United States.

3. I will refer you to the Preamble of the Constitution to provide an example of how you are incorrect in your statements that the g'ment is not We the People.

The preamble originally read, "We the States." The change to "We the People" was made by the Committee on Style, indicating that it was a change in rhetoric and not in the nature of the document. Once again, the incorrect conclusions you're drawing are based upon the a-historical nationalist theory of the Union.

In addition to Thomas DiLorenzo's Hamilton's Curse and The Real Lincoln, you should also read Kevin Gutzman's The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution and Tom Woods' Nullification. When you see the mountains of historical evidence in those books, hopefully you'll see how mistaken you really are.

4. The good Judge is nothing more than a right-wing neocon empty suit sputtering inconsistent empty rhetoric looking for his Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh style 15 minutes of fame (and millions in television appearances and book deals). So you'll excuse me if I don;t take his remarks seriously.

At this point, I don't take you seriously. Not only have you demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding about early American history and political theory, but you actually think that Judge Napolitano, one of the best allies the freedom movement has, is a neocon along the lines of Coulter and Limbaugh? Unbelievable.

Pericles

11-10-2010, 12:19 AM

Let's stop all of the bullshit...

If the 17th Amendment is unconstitutional due to some theory it contradicts original intent then the WHOLE CONSTITUTION is unconstitutional because it contradicts the original intent of the original PERPETUAL CONSTITUTION... the Articles of Confederation.

Now how many ways should I join other people picking apart the ridiculous argument an amendment is not constitutional?

Should I point out the first president was elected before all states ratified the Constitution?

Now I don't have a problem with it at all... throw out the unconstitutional Constitution and restore the perpetual constitution... Articles of Confederation.

A couple people pointed out the 17th Amendment was not properly ratified and some uneducated people quickly dismissed them. Educate yourself:
http://www.devvy.com/new_site/17th_amendment_docs_march_2010.html (http://www.devvy.com/new_site/17th_amendment_docs_march_2010.html)

This language from Article V "and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." could be construed to make the requirement for ratifying the 17th Amendment mandatory for all states, as they woulod have to consent to the change.

AxisMundi

11-10-2010, 05:43 PM

I'm beginning to wonder if you even read the source I provided. The missing records are primarily in the state archives.

Without the records, you don't have proof that the amendment was actually passed.

Don't count on it. This was almost 100 years ago; it was much easier to do things under the cover of darkness. For example, look at how the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

You have still not offered compelling evidence, or even evidence at all.

This is completely incorrect. You lack a fundamental understanding about early American history and the political theory that was held by the founders and the population at large. What you are describing is the a-historical nationalist theory of the Union, largely invented by people like Daniel Webster and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story and based upon the flawed and largely-rejected beliefs of Alexander Hamilton.

I have been an informal student of the Constitution since the days when we were required to do such studies in libraries, as the interenets hadn't been invented yet.

Your attempts at empty insult are simply void. of course, you can try to prove my statements wrong.

Wrong again; the states maintained their sovereign nationality even after the Constitution was ratified. Alexis de Tocqueville made that very observation in his famous visit to the early United States.

Citation please.

However, if one actually reads the document, one sees that all other rights and powers not lsited within the Constitution are reserved for the States.

Simple English should tell you that you are wrong.

The preamble originally read, "We the States." The change to "We the People" was made by the Committee on Style, indicating that it was a change in rhetoric and not in the nature of the document. Once again, the incorrect conclusions you're drawing are based upon the a-historical nationalist theory of the Union.

The Preamble, as ratified and passed, reads We the People, that is the only prelevant matter in this debate.

In addition to Thomas DiLorenzo's Hamilton's Curse and The Real Lincoln, you should also read Kevin Gutzman's The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution and Tom Woods' Nullification. When you see the mountains of historical evidence in those books, hopefully you'll see how mistaken you really are.

Thomas DiLorenzo is an economics professor, not a history or even political professor. He, as is Woods, are involved with such organizations as the Legue of the South and their motivations, and opinions, are questioanble.

While Kevin Gutzman's credentials are indeed in pertinent areas, I find some of his work questionable, impacted by the neocon ideology.

At this point, I don't take you seriously.

Such is the burden of blindness brought on by political partisanship.

Not only have you demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding about early American history and political theory, but you actually think that Judge Napolitano, one of the best allies the freedom movement has, is a neocon along the lines of Coulter and Limbaugh? Unbelievable.

What I ahve "displayed" is an opinion contrary to your opinions, your opinions which are guided, appearently, by partisan politics and not plain history.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-10-2010, 09:03 PM

You have still not offered compelling evidence, or even evidence at all.

I've provided a page that explains some of the problems with the ratification process of the 17th (with documented evidence in support), as well as an argument based on Article V and the contractual foundation of the Constitution. Just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't make it non-existent or invalid.

I have been an informal student of the Constitution since the days when we were required to do such studies in libraries, as the interenets hadn't been invented yet.

What's your point? This doesn't make you any less wrong.

Your attempts at empty insult are simply void. of course, you can try to prove my statements wrong.

I didn't insult you; I said you don't properly understand the subject matter, which is a fact. It may offend you (which was not my intent), but that doesn't make it an insult.

Also, it's not my job to prove you wrong; it's your job to prove yourself correct. I have asserted both that Judge Napolitano is correct and that there were problems with the ratification of the 17th, and I provided arguments and evidence in support of those conclusions. You may disregard them, but you haven't successfully refuted them. For example, it was in your attempt to refute the contractual argument that you demonstrated you don't understand the nature of the Union.

Citation please.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/alexis_de_tocqueville_quote_6452

However, if one actually reads the document, one sees that all other rights and powers not lsited within the Constitution are reserved for the States.

What does this have to do with the 17th amendment, and/or how does it support your argument in any way?

Simple English should tell you that you are wrong.

Please explain how "simple English" somehow proves your nationalist theory of the Union. The Constitution never says that the Union is a national union.

The Preamble, as ratified and passed, reads We the People, that is the only prelevant matter in this debate.

No, what's relevant is what the intended meaning of the phrase was, not just what literal words are on the page.

Thomas Jefferson said, "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm

You would have us separate the words from their historical context. And the contextual history is that the change from "We the States" to "We the People" was rhetorical. It cannot be taken to prove your nationalist theory.

Thomas DiLorenzo is an economics professor, not a history or even political professor.

So DiLorenzo doesn't count because his degree is in economics, but your opinion does count because you've done independent research (as you said above)? How is that not a double standard? How do you know DiLorenzo hasn't done independent research (and he has; that's why he's able to write books on historical issues)?

Furthermore, I will point out that DiLorenzo is a specialist in economic history.

He, as is Woods, are involved with such organizations as the Legue of the South and their motivations, and opinions, are questioanble.

To disregard someone's scholarship solely based on their associations is fallacious. The factual historical evidence in their work is objectively true regardless of what you think of their associations.

While Kevin Gutzman's credentials are indeed in pertinent areas, I find some of his work questionable, impacted by the neocon ideology.

I don't think you know what "neocon" even means. After all, you called the libertarian Judge Napolitano a neocon: a conclusion which I'm sure the overwhelming majority of people on this forum would consider incorrect.

Such is the burden of blindness brought on by political partisanship.

So because I don't take you seriously after you've demonstrated your lack of understanding regarding the material and have called one of the liberty movement's most significant leaders a "neocon," that makes me a political partisan?

What party would that be, exactly?

What I ahve "displayed" is an opinion contrary to your opinions, your opinions which are guided, appearently, by partisan politics and not plain history.

No, what you've displayed is historical error. Historical truth is not a matter of opinion. Your nationalist theory is objectively incorrect. It's derived from a false Hamiltonian view of American history and political theory which the majority of the population did not adhere to.

And again, what party are you referring to that is supposedly influencing my statements? Are you just throwing words around?

Live_Free_Or_Die

11-11-2010, 12:48 AM

This may or may not be true. I've thought about this issue before. The first question is, did "perpetual" in the Articles mean that a State couldn't secede from it, or did it simply mean that there was no established sunset provision for the expiration of that union? I don't know; I've heard it argued both ways, and I never researched it thoroughly enough to make a determination.

It is not reasonable to take a position on a thing when relevant facts on the same thing may or may not be true.

I do believe that some time ago, though, I was reading in some book (I think it may have been written in the 19th century) which explained the theory that the Constitution was able to contractually supplant the Articles because it was an exercise of popular sovereignty, i.e., the people of the states, acting via popularly-elected ratifying conventions, choosing to abolish the existing governmental structure and institute a new one.

It is not reasonable to change the nature of a thing without action so let's analyze the facts:

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

If the Articles of Confederation can only be altered by the legislatures of every State and congress, the following questions must be answered to determine if 1) We The People supplanted the AoC or 2) If the perpetual objection raised is even relevant:

1. Did any state legislature propose secession from the AoC before adoption a new constitution with a fundamental change such as We The People versus We The States?

2. Did the congress of the united States propose to dissolve the AoC?

3. Was the Constitution put to We The People for ratification or was it ratified by State legislatures?

I also want to say something about the use of the phrase "original intent" in this debate. If we take "original intent" to mean the format and power delegation of the Constitution when it was first ratified, then of course an amendment can and does alter original intent; that's the entire point of an amendment.

The argument here, though, is that an amendment cannot fundamentally undermine the contractual basis upon which the Constitution was enacted. I don't really call that "original intent."

Any contract can be easily modified in any way if the parties are in agreement. I find no logic in your assertion.

AxisMundi

11-11-2010, 10:03 AM

I've provided a page that explains some of the problems with the ratification process of the 17th (with documented evidence in support), as well as an argument based on Article V and the contractual foundation of the Constitution. Just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't make it non-existent or invalid........?

Our quotes are getting overly long, so I will address those items we have not already discussed ad nauseum...

You have offered nothing in the way of evidence. That is to say, you have only offered opinions, unrelated facts, and out-of-context quotes all strung together. It is no better than any 9/11 conspiracy theory.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-11-2010, 06:34 PM

It is not reasonable to take a position on a thing when relevant facts on the same thing may or may not be true.

If that's the case, then your position is also unreasonable, because your position also cannot be definitively proven. Or, there may indeed be evidence of a definitive conclusion of the meaning of "perpetual" in the Articles, but apparently neither of us is aware of it at this same.

Furthermore, I wasn't even affirmatively disputing your position; I was saying that it is something which cannot be determined.

Also, I actually believe that the Articles were superior to the Constitution, but that's not really relevant to the issue.

It is not reasonable to change the nature of a thing without action so let's analyze the facts:

The quote you provided from the Articles seems to have likely referred to amendments to the Articles within the context of that union, and not in reference to the dissolution of said union. After all, the colonies were fighting a war of secession from England, and each colony seceded independently; it's unlikely that they would have at the same time entered into a union (under the Articles) which affirmatively banned secession.

If the Articles of Confederation can only be altered by the legislatures of every State and congress, the following questions must be answered to determine if 1) We The People supplanted the AoC or 2) If the perpetual objection raised is even relevant:

1. Did any state legislature propose secession from the AoC before adoption a new constitution with a fundamental change such as We The People versus We The States?

2. Did the congress of the united States propose to dissolve the AoC?

3. Was the Constitution put to We The People for ratification or was it ratified by State legislatures?

Seeing as secession is a natural right, even if the perpetual clause did affirmatively ban secession (which, as discussed above, is probably unlikely), it wouldn't have been able to deprive the people of their right of secession.

Any contract can be easily modified in any way if the parties are in agreement. I find no logic in your assertion.

I don't think you understand my assertion. At what point did the parties to the Constitution, i.e., the people of the several States, agree to alter the fundamental nature of the Constitution and remove state sovereignty from the structure of the federal union? That never happened. And seeing as it didn't happen, it would be impermissible for a mere amendment to change that structure, especially considering the prohibition of Article V and the fact that not every State consented to the ratification of the 17th.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-11-2010, 06:36 PM

You have offered nothing in the way of evidence. That is to say, you have only offered opinions, unrelated facts, and out-of-context quotes all strung together. It is no better than any 9/11 conspiracy theory.

I believe my prior statements speak for themselves, so it appears that we have nothing further to discuss.

Live_Free_Or_Die

11-11-2010, 07:07 PM

If that's the case, then your position is also unreasonable, because your position also cannot be definitively proven. Or, there may indeed be evidence of a definitive conclusion of the meaning of "perpetual" in the Articles, but apparently neither of us is aware of it at this same.

Furthermore, I wasn't even affirmatively disputing your position; I was saying that it is something which cannot be determined.

The quote you provided from the Articles seems to have likely referred to amendments to the Articles within the context of that union, and not in reference to the dissolution of said union. After all, the colonies were fighting a war of secession from England, and each colony seceded independently; it's unlikely that they would have at the same time entered into a union (under the Articles) which affirmatively banned secession.

Seeing as secession is a natural right, even if the perpetual clause did affirmatively ban secession (which, as discussed above, is probably unlikely), it wouldn't have been able to deprive the people of their right of secession.

I don't think you understand my assertion. At what point did the parties to the Constitution, i.e., the people of the several States, agree to alter the fundamental nature of the Constitution and remove state sovereignty from the structure of the federal union? That never happened. And seeing as it didn't happen, it would be impermissible for a mere amendment to change that structure, especially considering the prohibition of Article V and the fact that not every State consented to the ratification of the 17th.

There is no way for you to dismiss the argument.

1. You have no evidence congress or the legislatures of the several states proposed any measures to dissolve or secede from the AoC.

Since that is the case you are essentially arguing a state can supplant an existing contract simply by amending or adopting a new one. But then you argue except for the Constitution. There is an inconsistency you have not resolved or provided no evidence in your favor.

Apply your whole argument to the Amendment process. Don't states have a right to secede and adopt a constitution with a new amendment? Since you can not present an objection your same argument applies in reverse.

When a state ratified the 17th amendment it seceded and adopted a new constitution that was worded exactly the same as the previous one except for the fundamental changes provided for in the new amendment.

Since you have no argument against the AoC, applying your logic, the states do not need to deliberate secession.

nemt4paul

11-11-2010, 08:24 PM

Just amazing how psychic everyone is on the Internets when it comes to talking about a perrson's political ideology after only a few posts.

Just to clear the air, I am indeed small government, not the "either/or" non-existant government you and your fellows advocate in the usual political hackery fashion. Some government is neccessary to provide basic civil services.

Also, considering the complete and utter lack of knowledge on the Constitution exhibited by many here, this part of your comment is also laughable.

And no, I am no fan of neocon media talking heads like the Judge, thank you.

Then feel free to explain why I wrote in the name of a man I "don't support" on my ballot, as opposed to voting for McSame or BHO?

Good, means people are listening.

So now the judge is a Neocon huh? You lost all credibility on that one.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-11-2010, 09:12 PM

1. You have no evidence congress or the legislatures of the several states proposed any measures to dissolve or secede from the AoC.

This is not technically true, seeing as the legislatures did call for the assembly of popular conventions to debate and vote on the formation of a new union by ratifying the Constitution (and hence, withdrawing from the union governed by the Articles).

However, even if what you are saying were correct, it wouldn't matter, because as I said, secession is a natural right which supersedes established governments, and it was popular conventions of the people that chose to secede from the Articles and form a new union under the Constitution. However, you may possibly be able to argue that the popular conventions were an invalid method of popular secession because such secession would have to be approved via a free plebiscite.

Since that is the case you are essentially arguing a state can supplant an existing contract simply by amending or adopting a new one. But then you argue except for the Constitution. There is an inconsistency you have not resolved or provided no evidence in your favor.

That is not what I'm arguing. I'm simply affirming that the people can withdraw themselves from an existing government and form a new one (or none at all, if they choose). This is largely the same argument made in the Declaration of Independence, although I would argue that an existing government need not be tyrannical in order for peaceful secession to rightly be allowed.

Also, I disagree with your contention that an amendment to the Constitution makes it a new contract. That is not the case; the amendment process is part of the Constitution and hence is governed under its authority.

Apply your whole argument to the Amendment process. Don't states have a right to secede and adopt a constitution with a new amendment? Since you can not present an objection your same argument applies in reverse.

When a state ratified the 17th amendment it seceded and adopted a new constitution that was worded exactly the same as the previous one except for the fundamental changes provided for in the new amendment.

This is incorrect. Your argument would require the co-existence of two rival contracts (constitutions), both claiming supremacy: one affecting states which ratified the 17th, and one affecting states which didn't. However, there is only one union, not two. An amendment does not supplant the contract; it alters one or more provisions of it in a method agreed to by the parties when they originally formed it. The ways in which it may be altered are limited by the foundational principles of that contract.

Who were the parties? The people of the several States.

Since you have no argument against the AoC, applying your logic, the states do not need to deliberate secession.

I don't think a state legislature has the authority to secede under the Constitution; only the people of a State do. This was probably the theory adhered to during the War of Northern Aggression; secession was typically conducted by popular conventions, and in some case(es) by a popular vote to ratify the decision of a convention.

And I do believe that the people of the several States can and should debate peaceful secession as a modern solution.

Live_Free_Or_Die

11-11-2010, 10:17 PM

This is not technically true, seeing as the legislatures did call for the assembly of popular conventions to debate and vote on the formation of a new union by ratifying the Constitution (and hence, withdrawing from the union governed by the Articles).

No it is true, technically and in every other sense of the word true. States ratified it not We The People. Feel free to cite any legislative record of any state to demonstrate We The People not state legislatures ratified it.

Again you argue the ratification of a thing = replacement. You try to tip toe around the issue and there is no wiggle room. If ratification means the AoC can be replaced ratification also means the Constitution can be replaced.

However, even if what you are saying were correct, it wouldn't matter, because as I said, secession is a natural right which supersedes established governments, and it was popular conventions of the people that chose to secede from the Articles and form a new union under the Constitution. However, you may possibly be able to argue that the popular conventions were an invalid method of popular secession because such secession would have to be approved via a free plebiscite.

When facing the fact states ratified a thing you rebut... well the states had popular conventions therefore We The People ratified it. It's not true. States ratified it not We The People.

Congress has regular public hearings on the Federal Reserve (including one with Tom Woods) so when the FED prints up $600 billion We The People ratified it. :rolleyes:

That is not what I'm arguing. I'm simply affirming that the people can withdraw themselves from an existing government and form a new one (or none at all, if they choose). This is largely the same argument made in the Declaration of Independence, although I would argue that an existing government need not be tyrannical in order for peaceful secession to rightly be allowed.

Also, I disagree with your contention that an amendment to the Constitution makes it a new contract. That is not the case; the amendment process is part of the Constitution and hence is governed under its authority.

It is not my contention an amendment to the Constitution makes it a new contract. This is your contention regarding the AoC and I am applying your logic to amending the Constitution. You are unable to defend against it.

If ratifying the Constitution = 1) a state secedes and 2) adopts a new constitution
Then ratifying an Amendment = 1) a state secedes and 2) adopts a new constitution

What I am saying is the word "ratify" means the same thing. You are trying to change the word ratify to mean two wholly different things.

It could also be argued secession can not occur until people have sought remedy by petition for a redress of grievances which wouldn't help your secession argument.

This is incorrect. Your argument would require the co-existence of two rival contracts (constitutions), both claiming supremacy: one affecting states which ratified the 17th, and one affecting states which didn't. However, there is only one union, not two. An amendment does not supplant the contract; it alters one or more provisions of it in a method agreed to by the parties when they originally formed it. The ways in which it may be altered are limited by the foundational principles of that contract.

Who were the parties? The people of the several States.

Your one union argument does not hold up to the historical record. The first president of the United States of America was elected before all of the parties to the Articles of Confederation ratified the Constitution.

So yes, concurrent contracts are not some new concept. Are you going to suggest the first president had jurisdiction over states that had not ratified the Constitution and did not participate in the election?

According to your logic if you "ratify" a thing such as an Amendment it does in fact create a new contract because ratification = 1) a state secedes and 2) adopts a new constitution.

Your argument a contract can not be modified in any way when the ratifying parties are in agreement is still absurd despite raising it again.

I don't think a state legislature has the authority to secede under the Constitution; only the people of a State do. This was probably the theory adhered to during the War of Northern Aggression; secession was typically conducted by popular conventions, and in some case(es) by a popular vote to ratify the decision of a convention.

And I do believe that the people of the several States can and should debate peaceful secession as a modern solution.

I can't help but chuckle at that argument. Above you said secession is a natural right! Let me see if I got this correct... Popular conventions held by state legislatures on secession/adopting a new confederate constitution is not an act by We The People but popular conventions held by state legislatures on ratifying a constitution is an act by We The People?

There seems to be a major contradiction in your argument considering the southern States adopted a new constitution.

For the other obvious problem with your argument. Since the AoC and Constitution are both void of a secession clause your opinion on authority to secede is subjective and inconsistent considering both constitutions were ratified by states.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-12-2010, 12:53 AM

No it is true, technically and in every other sense of the word true. States ratified it not We The People. Feel free to cite any legislative record of any state to demonstrate We The People not state legislatures ratified it.

Are you even paying attention to what you're debating? You claimed that there is no evidence that the legislatures ever "proposed any measures" (your words) to "dissolve or secede from" the union formed by the Articles. I responded by showing that your claim is inaccurate because the legislatures called for popular conventions which voted on whether or not to ratify the Constitution, hence leaving the old union and joining a new one. That's a fact, thus, your statement was inaccurate.

Furthermore, I don't see why you're trying to make the point about "We the People" and "We the States." If you'd read my other posts here, you'd see that throughout this entire thread I have continually opposed the nationalist theory of the union in defense of the compact theory. In fact, the essential reality of state sovereignty and its fundamental place in the framework of the constitutional contract is a principle reason why the 17th amendment cannot be considered valid; that was, it seems, Judge Napolitano's whole point.

But the fact is that the Constitution was ratified by the people of the several States assembled in popular conventions, hence making it at the foundation an act of sovereign groups of peoples, not primarily an act of state governments.

Again you argue the ratification of a thing = replacement. You try to tip toe around the issue and there is no wiggle room. If ratification means the AoC can be replaced ratification also means the Constitution can be replaced.

Of course the Constitution can be replaced. It just cannot be replaced by a mere amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is just like an amendment to the Articles. It amends certain provisions of the contract according to procedure set out when the contract was initially enacted; it does not supplant the contract.

The decision by the sovereign people of the several sovereign States to enact a new union under the Constitution supplanted the Articles. In like manner, in order for the Constitution to be supplanted, something above and beyond a mere amendment would have to take place, such as the people choosing to discard the Constitution and enact a new form of government (or, if they prefer, none at all).

When facing the fact states ratified a thing you rebut... well the states had popular conventions therefore We The People ratified it. It's not true. States ratified it not We The People.

The states did have popular conventions which were called into meeting by the legislatures. The people elected delegates, the delegates debated and voted on whether to ratify the Constitution. That's historical fact.

You seem to misunderstand the fact that the term "state" has multiple meanings. It can mean a geographic territory, it can mean a government, or it can mean a sovereign body politic. It is in this third sense that the States (i.e., the people of the several States) ratified the Constitution. See Gutzman's The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

Congress has regular public hearings on the Federal Reserve (including one with Tom Woods) so when the FED prints up $600 billion We The People ratified it. :rolleyes:

What are you even talking about? This statement is ridiculous and doesn't represent my position at all.

It is not my contention an amendment to the Constitution makes it a new contract. This is your contention regarding the AoC and I am applying your logic to amending the Constitution. You are unable to defend against it.

Wrong. The Articles were not amended when the Constitution was ratified; they were replaced entirely. When the sovereign people of a sovereign State chose to remove themselves from the government under the Articles and place themselves under the government of the Constitution, the Articles ceased to be in effect for those states once the new union was created (with the ratification of nine states).

If ratifying the Constitution = 1) a state secedes and 2) adopts a new constitution
Then ratifying an Amendment = 1) a state secedes and 2) adopts a new constitution

What I am saying is the word "ratify" means the same thing. You are trying to change the word ratify to mean two wholly different things.

That's because it does mean two different things. Approving (or ratifying) an amendment to a document according to terms set forth in that document (and hence governed by said terms) is completely different from discarding the first document and enacting (or ratifying) an entirely new document, an act which is not governed by the terms of the previous document.

It could also be argued secession can not occur until people have sought remedy by petition for a redress of grievances which wouldn't help your secession argument.

I don't see how this is directly relevant to the discussion.

Your one union argument does not hold up to the historical record. The first president of the United States of America was elected before all of the parties to the Articles of Confederation ratified the Constitution.

I don't have a "one union" argument. My statement was that two contracts claiming legal supremacy (i.e., two constitutions) cannot be in effect in a single legal jurisdiction. Any states which did not ratify the Constitution would be in a completely separate union and thus in a completely separate jurisdiction. The example I gave was to refute the idea that some states could enact a new constitution and hence an entirely new contract by choosing to ratify the 17th; they cannot.

Amendments are ratified by state legislatures according to the terms of Article V. State legislatures are not parties to the contract; the people of the several States are the parties, acting as sovereign bodies politic. The parties (i.e., the people of the several sovereign States) delegated to their state governments the right to amend provisions of the contract to the extent allowed by Article V; they (the legislatures) do not have the authority to violate or alter the foundational principles of that contract because they were not the parties to it.

So yes, concurrent contracts are not some new concept. Are you going to suggest the first president had jurisdiction over states that had not ratified the Constitution and did not participate in the election?

I really don't think you've paid much attention to my positions as expressed throughout this thread. Clearly, if any states chose not to ratify the Constitution, they would have remained under the Articles and hence in an entirely separate union from the new one which was created by said Constitution.

According to your logic if you "ratify" a thing such as an Amendment it does in fact create a new contract because ratification = 1) a state secedes and 2) adopts a new constitution.

Your misunderstanding here is based upon your failure to see that ratification means different things in different contexts, as discussed above.

Your argument a contract can not be modified in any way when the ratifying parties are in agreement is still absurd despite raising it again.

That is not what I said. The ratifying parties of the Constitution are the people of the several States. The legislatures called for conventions, the people elected delegates, the delegates debated the Constitution and voted to ratify it. This was an expression of popular sovereignty. It was "states" in the sense of sovereign bodies politic, not state governments, which are the parties.

I can't help but chuckle at that argument. Above you said secession is a natural right! Let me see if I got this correct... Popular conventions held by state legislatures on secession/adopting a new confederate constitution is not an act by We The People but popular conventions held by state legislatures on ratifying a constitution is an act by We The People?

No, you don't have it correct. What I said is that a state government (i.e., legislature and governor) doesn't have the authority to secede. The people of a State, as a sovereign body politic, have the right to secede their state from the union. Actions of the popular sovereignty in ratifying conventions is how the states joined the union in the first place, and that is generally how states seceded during the War of Northern Aggression.

And seeing as secession is a natural right, I would also argue that even smaller groups of persons, and/or smaller jurisdictions, also have a moral right to peacefully secede if they chose to do so in a freely conducted plebiscite.

There seems to be a major contradiction in your argument considering the southern States adopted a new constitution.

How? They seceded lawfully, they enacted a new form of government under a new contract.

For the other obvious problem with your argument. Since the AoC and Constitution are both void of a secession clause your opinion on authority to secede is subjective and inconsistent considering both constitutions were ratified by states.

The right of secession is implicit in the Constitution; it was almost universally understood and accepted at the time the Constitution was ratified.

And once again, I'll point out that you misunderstand the different uses of the term "state." The Constitution was not ratified by state governments; it was ratified by the states as sovereign bodies politic. Again, I will refer you to Gutzman's book.

This whole debate is very tiring. I don't even see what you're trying to prove. Earlier you cited a link that I myself had cited previously, demonstrating inconsistencies in the ratification process of the 17th, so I assume we are in agreement on that point. My other point is that the 17th is further invalid on historical contractual grounds, which seems to be the same point made by Judge Napolitano (although I argue it in a slightly different way than he has expressed).

Live_Free_Or_Die

11-12-2010, 05:56 PM

This whole debate is very tiring. I don't even see what you're trying to prove. Earlier you cited a link that I myself had cited previously, demonstrating inconsistencies in the ratification process of the 17th, so I assume we are in agreement on that point. My other point is that the 17th is further invalid on historical contractual grounds, which seems to be the same point made by Judge Napolitano (although I argue it in a slightly different way than he has expressed).

I disagree the 17th Amendment is invalid on historical contractual grounds.

I think your contentions on historical contractual grounds are absurd. First the Constitution was legally originated in the legal process to amend the Articles of Confederation. The legal process to amend the Articles of Confederation required the ratification of all states. The scope of the origination of the Constitution is plain, it was an amendment to the Articles of Confederation but it fundamentally altered the Articles of Confederation. This is your complaint of the 17th Amendment. So what do you argue? You argue the Constitution was ratified by We The People and not the States due to some popular convention theory.

Continental Congress:

Report of Proceedings in Congress; February 21, 1787
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS IN CONGRESS,(1)
WEDNESDAY FEBy 21, 1787

Congress assembled as before.

The report of a grand comee consisting of Mr Dane Mr Varnum Mr S. M. Mitchell Mr Smith Mr Cadwallader Mr Irwine Mr N. Mitchell Mr Forrest Mr Grayson Mr Blount Mr Bull & Mr Few, to whom was referred a letter of I4 Septr 1786 from J. Dickinson written at the request of Commissioners from the States of Virginia Delaware Pensylvania New Jersey & New York assembled at the City of Annapolis together with a copy of the report of the said commissioners to the legislatures of the States by whom they were appointed, being an order of the day was called up & which is contained in the following resolution viz

"Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickinson esqr chairman of the Commissioners who assembled at Annapolis during the last year also the proceedings of the said commissioners and entirely coinciding with them as to the inefficiency of the federal government and the necessity of devising such farther provisions as shall render the same adequate to the exigencies of the Union do strongly recommend to the different legislatures to send forward delegates to meet the proposed convention on the second Monday in May next at the city of Philadelphia "

The delegates for the state of New York thereupon laid before Congress Instructions which they had received from their constituents, & in pursuance of the said instructions moved to postpone the farther consideration of the report in order to take up the following proposition to wit

" That it be recommended to the States composing the Union that a convention of representatives from the said States respectively be held at on for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the United States of America and reporting to the United States in Congress assembled and to the States respectively such alterations and amendments of the said Articles of Confederation as the representatives met in such convention shall judge proper and necessary to render them adequate to the preservation and support of the Union "

On the question to postpone for the purpose above mentioned the yeas & nays being required by the delegates for New York.

[yas & nays]

So the question was lost.

A motion was then made by the delegates for Massachusetts to postpone the farther consideration of the report in order to take into consideration a motion which they read in their place, this being agreed to, the motion of the delegates for Massachusetts as taken up and being amended was agreed to as follows

Whereas there is provision in the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union for making alterations therein by the assent of a Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of the several States; And whereas experience hath evinced that there are defects in the present Confederation, as a mean to remedy which several of the States and particularly the State of New York by express instructions to their delegates in Congress have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these states a firm national government.

Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.

Madison's convention notes:

Monday May 14th 1787 was the day fixed for the meeting of the deputies in Convention for revising the federal system of Government.

The Constitution was a proposed Amendment. It's clear. But to deny this obvious truth you say.... well States have a natural right of secession and the Constitution was ratified by popular convention.

Virginia ratifying convention:

On motion,—

The resolution of Congress of the 28th of September last, together with the report of the federal Convention lately held in Philadelphia; the resolutions of the General Assembly of the 25th of October last, and the act of the General Assembly entitled, "An act concerning the Convention to be held in June next," were read;—

So even though those so called popular conventions were a function of State legislatures and convened for the express purpose of accepting or rejecting a recognized resolution of Congress (not We The People drafting a Constitution mind you)... you say... well that doesn't matter because they were popular conventions by We The People. I mean how intellectually dishonest can we be here? Are you kidding me? The Constitution was ratified by We The People? I don't think so. At no time did the people in the several states spontaneously organize to adopt new constitutions. This happened under the application of legislatures on a resolution of Congress for the purpose of Amending the Articles of Confederation.

When facing these facts you think to yourself... hmmm I have to dismiss these facts because I am making the exact same complaint about the 17th Amendment and the 17th Amendment is unconstitutional because it is a fundamental alteration. You have to dismiss facts the Constitution was an Amendment to the Articles of Confederation. Despite the fact when only nine states ratified the Constitution you have to dismiss the fact there were concurrent contracts. But you can't dismiss them. Your exact points were argued amending the Articles of Confederation.

Patrick Henry during the Virginia ratifying convention:

This, sir, is the language of democracy — that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen, standing on this ground, are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I cannot help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone forever…

Yup, that pretty much sums up your argument. Well guess what? The Anti-Federalists were right because amendments were left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America and your liberty is gone. Why do you make these arguments? Because the right thing to do is stand up to your own government and we are afraid to organize, petition, and stand up to our own government. So instead of recognizing the plain truth of the matter you try to convince people some notion of a long lost Republic that has not existed since the Civil War still exists (and we haven't even discussed or taken into consideration the Civil War fully devastates your arguments because the Civil War fundamentally changed everything forever using force and it has been so ever since).

Opposition to ratification was led by Governor George Clinton; the opposition also suggested that New York reserve the right to withdraw if the Constitution were not amended. Hamilton wrote Madison, as Secretary of the Virginia ratifying convention, and received the reply:

I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to
propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of
a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the
Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it
does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she
could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this
principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires
an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other
States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption
of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate
the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new
States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I
suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to
add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered
as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a
rejection.

The whole nature of reciprocal also sinks your argument about concurrent or perpetual contracts. Just because you enter into a new contract it does not make existing contracts void. Your concurrent argument becomes more absurd when you consider ratification according to your views which are there are two contracting parties 1) AoC ratified by States and 2) Constitution ratified by We The People.

Regarding your secession argument? Where is it mentioned States had any intention of voiding the existing contract the Articles of Confederation that they were seeking to amend? Is it in any of the ratifications? Nope, but when faced with that fact you go back and argue the absurd position these conventions were not part of the legislative process to amend the Articles of Confederation it was some spontaneous organization of We The People.

You laughed at my Federal Reserve reference but you wholly subscribe to a view an elected representative has power of attorney to contract in your name on the most sacred of causes... your individual liberty:

WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction, that, whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification:

We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following:

Was it binding on the convention delegates that voted no?
Was it binding on the people that did not vote for a delegate?
Was it binding on posterity?

This sure does not sound like a Republic to me. It sounds like the tyranny of a majority binding the minority. I am confident divine providence will not disappoint those who demand rulers when the blow back resulting from oppressing the minority has run its course.

Now getting back to my point about ratification. Ratification identifies the contracting parties.

19th century definition of Ratification:

RATIFICATION, contracts. An agreement to adopt an act performed by another for us.

2. Ratifications are either empress or implied. The former are made in express and direct terms of assent; the latter are such as the law presumes from the acts of the principal; as, if Peter buy goods for James, and the latter, knowing the fact, receive them and apply them to his own use. By ratifying a contract a man adopts the agency, altogether, as well what is detrimental as that which is for his benefit. 2 Str. R. 859; 1 Atk. 128; 4 T. R. 211; 7 East, R. 164; 16 M. R. 105; 1 Ves. 509 Smith on Mer. L. 60; Story, Ag. §250 9 B. & Cr. 59.

3. As a general rule, the principal has the right to elect whether he will adopt the unauthorized act or not. But having once ratified the act, upon a full knowledge of all the material circumstances, the ratification cannot be revoked or recalled, and the principal becomes bound as if he had originally authorized the act. Story, Ag. §250; Paley, Ag. by Lloyd, 171; 3 Chit. Com. Law, 197.

4. The ratification of a lawful contract has a retrospective effect, ana binds the principal from its date, and not only from the time of the ratification, for the ratification is equivalent to an original authority, according to the maxim, that omnis ratihabitio mandate aeguiparatur. Poth. Ob. n. 75; Ld. Raym. 930; Com. 450; 5 Burr. 2727; 2 H. Bl. 623; 1 B. & P. 316; 13 John.; R. 367; 2 John. Cas. 424; 2 Mass. R. 106.

5. Such ratification will, in general, relieve the agent from all responsibility on the contract, when be would otherwise have been liable. 2 Brod. & Bing. 452. See 16 Mass. R. 461; 8 Wend. R. 494; 10 Wend. R. 399; Story, Ag. §251. Vide Assent, and Ayl. Pand. *386; 18 Vin. Ab. 156; 1 Liv. on, Ag. c. 2, §4, p. 44, 47; Story on Ag. §239; 3 Chit. Com. L. 197; Paley on Ag. by Lloyd, 324; Smith on Mer. L. 47, 60; 2 John. Cas. 424; 13 Mass. R. 178; Id. 391; Id. 379; 6 Pick. R. 198; 1 Bro. Ch. R. 101, note; S. C. Ambl. R. 770; 1 Pet. C. C. R. 72; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

6. An infant is not liable on his contracts; but if, after coming of age, he ratify the contract by an actual or express declaration, he will be bound to perform it, as if it had been made after he attained full age. The ratification must be voluntary, deliberate, and intelligent, and the party must know that without it, he would not be bound. 11 S. & R. 305, 311; 3 Penn. St. R. 428. See 12 Conn. 551, 556; 10 Mass. 137,140; 14 Mass. 457; 4 Wend. 403, 405. But a confirmation or ratification of a contract, may be implied from acts of the infant after he becomes of age; as by enjoying or claiming a benefit under a contract be might have wholly rescinded; 1 Pick. 221, 22 3; and an infant partner will be liable for the contracts of the firm, or at least such as were known to him, if he, after becoming of age, confirm the contract of partnership by transacting business of the firm, receiving profits, and the like. 2 Hill. So. Car. Rep. 479; 1 B. Moore, 289.

Have you ratified the Constitution?
Are you bound to the Constitution?

AxisMundi

11-13-2010, 08:23 AM

I believe my prior statements speak for themselves, so it appears that we have nothing further to discuss.

Indeed. We will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

TheDriver

11-13-2010, 08:26 AM

For those arguing that the 17th wasn't ratified:

Do you make the same arguments for the 14th?

FrankRep

11-13-2010, 08:33 AM

For those arguing that the 17th wasn't ratified:

It's in the Constitution Now. That's what important.

We need to Repeal it!

AxisMundi

11-13-2010, 08:42 AM

So now the judge is a Neocon huh? You lost all credibility on that one.

The fact that you cannot see it eliminated yours immediatly.

FrankRep

11-13-2010, 08:50 AM

And no, I am no fan of neocon media talking heads like the Judge, thank you.

Judge Napolitano is Not a Neocon.

Negative Rep for you!

AxisMundi

11-13-2010, 12:08 PM

Judge Napolitano is Not a Neocon.

Negative Rep for you!

Our opinions differ.

And thanks for the neg-rep. That means at least people are reading my posts, even if our views do not coincide.

Ain't America wonderful? :)

LibertyEagle

11-13-2010, 12:16 PM

The Founder's Intent is well preserved. Indeed, it has been supported by the 17th, if anything.

We the People now have direct control of both houses of Congress.

Nope. Direct election of the Senate was most certainly NOT the intent of the Founders.

FrankRep

11-13-2010, 12:56 PM

The Founder's Intent is well preserved. Indeed, it has been supported by the 17th, if anything.

We the People now have direct control of both houses of Congress.

AxisMundi, Wrong!

Wikipedia: 17th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution)

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Sect ion_3:_Senate), Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which Senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, to be consistent with the method of election. It was adopted on April 8, 1913.

The Original Constitution said:

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 Founder's Intent was for America to be a Republic, not a Democracy.

AxisMundi

11-13-2010, 03:09 PM

AxisMundi, Wrong!

Wikipedia: 17th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit ution)

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Sect ion_3:_Senate), Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which Senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, to be consistent with the method of election. It was adopted on April 8, 1913.

The Original Constitution said:

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 Founder's Intent was for America to be a Republic, not a Democracy.

1. The Constitution can indeed be changed using the criteria found within the document. This occured with the 17th Amendment.

2. We are STILL not a democracy, and we REMAIN a Constitutional Republic.

BTW, I've seen people point out the "we aren't a democracy" thing a few times on this thread. Remember that statement next time you go to the voting booth.

AxisMundi

11-13-2010, 03:11 PM

Nope. Direct election of the Senate was most certainly NOT the intent of the Founders.

Allowing the Constitution to be amended with due process by the procedures they outlined was.

People whine and bitcha bout curruption in the g'ment, yet when measures are taken to eliminate said curruption, they bitch louder.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-13-2010, 03:28 PM

Do you make the same arguments for the 14th?

The 14th was "ratified" by many southern states under military coercion, thus making it invalid. Tom Woods covered this in The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-13-2010, 04:00 PM

First the Constitution was legally originated in the legal process to amend the Articles of Confederation. The legal process to amend the Articles of Confederation required the ratification of all states. The scope of the origination of the Constitution is plain, it was an amendment to the Articles of Confederation but it fundamentally altered the Articles of Confederation.

The initial reason for which the Philadelphia convention was called was to amend the Articles; you are correct. However, the Constitution they drafted was not an amendment to the Articles. The delegates to the convention defied their mandate and created a new document to supplant the Articles. However, what the framers did in Philadelphia was not legally-binding. It was the ratifying conventions which actually gave the Constitution legal force, withdrew the ratifying States from the union under the Articles and placed them into a new union under the Constitution.

This is your complaint of the 17th Amendment. So what do you argue? You argue the Constitution was ratified by We The People and not the States due to some popular convention theory.

No, that is not what I said. The nationalist theory of the Constitution holds that the aggregate people of the United States ratified the Constitution; that is incorrect. The compact theory of the Constitution correctly holds that the Constitution was ratified by the people of the several States; it was not ratified by state governments.

Once again, I will point out that there are multiple meanings of the word "state." You apparently fail to grasp this. The States did indeed ratify the Constitution, but it was not the state governments; it was the States as sovereign bodies politic. You can find this material covered in both Tom Woods' Nullification and Kevin Gutzman's The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

Patrick Henry during the Virginia ratifying convention:

Patrick Henry, though he opposed the Constitution, did support the new union once it came into being; he did not recognize it as being some illegitimate body which usurped the Articles.

The Anti-Federalists were right because amendments were left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America and your liberty is gone.

Of course the Anti-Federalists were right. I've already said that the Articles were superior to the Constitution.

Why do you make these arguments? Because the right thing to do is stand up to your own government and we are afraid to organize, petition, and stand up to our own government. So instead of recognizing the plain truth of the matter you try to convince people some notion of a long lost Republic that has not existed since the Civil War still exists (and we haven't even discussed or taken into consideration the Civil War fully devastates your arguments because the Civil War fundamentally changed everything forever using force and it has been so ever since).

Wrong again. While the political culture was certainly much better before the Civil War, I never claimed that it was ideal. You are creating a straw man. In actuality, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. But my ideals are irrelevant to this discussion; this is simply about legal/historical legitimacy.

Furthermore, the Union victory in the Civil War in no way impacts the veracity of my arguments; just because the Union won doesn't mean that they were right or that their actions were legitimate.

Have you ratified the Constitution?
Are you bound to the Constitution?

It seems that what you're trying to do, although you have not made your own position clear, is turn this into a debate about the entire legitimacy of established governments and social contracts, and that is not a debate I intend to have. And if that is indeed your position, then you should have made that clear at the beginning rather than trying to argue from the position the Constitution was a usurpation of the Articles, because then you would have to also argue that the Articles were illegitimate as well.

Live_Free_Or_Die

11-13-2010, 06:35 PM

I am not citing people's assertions for them. If you assert something you have to substantiate it.

The initial reason for which the Philadelphia convention was called was to amend the Articles; you are correct. However, the Constitution they drafted was not an amendment to the Articles. The delegates to the convention defied their mandate and created a new document to supplant the Articles. However, what the framers did in Philadelphia was not legally-binding. It was the ratifying conventions which actually gave the Constitution legal force, withdrew the ratifying States from the union under the Articles and placed them into a new union under the Constitution.

As soon as you bring some evidence to the table substantiating your argument it can be considered. You have not offered any records of any proceedings to demonstrate otherwise. They did not defy anything, the historical definition of amendment is an alteration or change. They proposed an amendment and under the Articles of Confederation the states (by whatever definition you want to use... body politic or state government) were required to unanimously ratify any amendments. If a ratifying convention convenes and the recorded minutes say we are gathered here today to discuss X you can't claim they were discussing Y.

No, that is not what I said. The nationalist theory of the Constitution holds that the aggregate people of the United States ratified the Constitution; that is incorrect. The compact theory of the Constitution correctly holds that the Constitution was ratified by the people of the several States; it was not ratified by state governments.

Once again, I will point out that there are multiple meanings of the word "state." You apparently fail to grasp this. The States did indeed ratify the Constitution, but it was not the state governments; it was the States as sovereign bodies politic. You can find this material covered in both Tom Woods' Nullification and Kevin Gutzman's The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

I do not debate appeals to authority. If you assert it, you cite it. I am not failing to grasp anything. Are you reading what you write?

Pay extra close attention to this section.

To illustrate the complete and total absurdity of your argument, I will perform a simple substitution of your definitions in Article V...

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States Sovereign body politics, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States Sovereign body politics, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State Sovereign body politic, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Inserting your definitions of State and the fact the so called Sovereign body politic elects Senators under the 17th Amendment the State Sovereign body politic is not deprived of its equal suffrage.

this is simply about legal/historical legitimacy.

That is all I am debating.

Furthermore, the Union victory in the Civil War in no way impacts the veracity of my arguments; just because the Union won doesn't mean that they were right or that their actions were legitimate.

Bullshit. The whole legal existence of the colonies is based on force. Force is the only thing that commands and the Treaty of Paris was evidence of authority because force was no longer in dispute.

Since the Civil war was also a dispute of force you can not hold a different legal standard. You can make a moral argument and say it was northern aggression. It is hypocritical to recognize the legal existence of the colonies following the American revolution, which was based on force, and deny the outcome the civil war, which was also based on force. Like Indians... southern States are conquered people.

It seems that what you're trying to do, although you have not made your own position clear,

I made my position clear. States ratified the "Constitution" Amendment, States ratified the 17th Amendment, and both Amendments were a change to the federal political subdivision. My position is... if you voluntarily accept the authority of the State you have no argument because when you vote, you give power of attorney to the winning delegate representative who can contract away your liberty in your own name.

is turn this into a debate about the entire legitimacy of established governments and social contracts, and that is not a debate I intend to have. And if that is indeed your position, then you should have made that clear at the beginning rather than trying to argue from the position the Constitution was a usurpation of the Articles, because then you would have to also argue that the Articles were illegitimate as well.

No, the legitimacy of existing established governments are crystal clear. As previously stated force is the only thing that commands. The legitimacy of existing established governments are based on force.

Second, you can't cherry pick the conversation. If you are going to debate ratification, origin, and legitimacy of the Constitution you can not pick and choose which aspects of origin are on or off the table.

Have you ratified the Constitution?
Are you bound to the Constitution?

AxisMundi

11-14-2010, 10:11 AM

All this talk of the 17th, when the 13th and 14th were certainly have issues.

Perhaps because most people agree with the majority of those two Amendments, so they cannot really be usedas an empty rally point for the troops?

If we are going to discuss a real Constitutional issue, then that would be the illegality of our current Motto and Pledge.

RPgrassrootsactivist

11-17-2010, 06:36 PM

As soon as you bring some evidence to the table substantiating your argument it can be considered. You have not offered any records of any proceedings to demonstrate otherwise. They did not defy anything, the historical definition of amendment is an alteration or change.

What I'm describing is common knowledge for those who understand American constitutional history. I'm not going to sit here and type out a thorough explanation of it all for you; you can go look up some of the libertarian/conservative historical literature on the subject.

I do not debate appeals to authority. If you assert it, you cite it. I am not failing to grasp anything. Are you reading what you write?

I am citing relevant scholarship. If you doubt the veracity of what I'm saying, it's your job to check my references.

To illustrate the complete and total absurdity of your argument, I will perform a simple substitution of your definitions in Article V...

Inserting your definitions of State and the fact the so called Sovereign body politic elects Senators under the 17th Amendment the State Sovereign body politic is not deprived of its equal suffrage.

Incorrect. The meaning of "State" in Article V does actually mean state government, a conclusion which can be reached by analyzing the historical context. It was state governments which were represented in the Senate, according to the compact agreed to by the States as sovereign bodies politic.

The whole legal existence of the colonies is based on force. Force is the only thing that commands and the Treaty of Paris was evidence of authority because force was no longer in dispute.

Since the Civil war was also a dispute of force you can not hold a different legal standard. You can make a moral argument and say it was northern aggression. It is hypocritical to recognize the legal existence of the colonies following the American revolution, which was based on force, and deny the outcome the civil war, which was also based on force.

This is completely ridiculous. There is an obvious difference between the colonies declaring independence against tyranny and the northern union tyrannically suppressing the southern confederacy.

This debate is useless, it's not going anywhere, and hence I am not going to debate this with you any more.

Live_Free_Or_Die

11-18-2010, 12:53 AM

What I'm describing is common knowledge for those who understand American constitutional history. I'm not going to sit here and type out a thorough explanation of it all for you; you can go look up some of the libertarian/conservative historical literature on the subject.

I am citing relevant scholarship. If you doubt the veracity of what I'm saying, it's your job to check my references.

Let me see if I have your position correct. I cite historical documents articulating the purpose of conventions and your argument is you don't have to substantiate or refute anything and I need to go look it up?

Don't count on that happening anytime soon.

Incorrect. The meaning of "State" in Article V does actually mean state government, a conclusion which can be reached by analyzing the historical context. It was state governments which were represented in the Senate, according to the compact agreed to by the States as sovereign bodies politic.

Let us review Article 5 again.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Again using your definition of State in Article V...

Popular Conventions = State Government.

or by Conventions in three fourths thereof

Ouch!!! :)

This is completely ridiculous.

Yes it is. Your historical argument about the 17th Amendment is absurdly ridiculous because those so called popular conventions among the States you keep referring to that ratified the Constitution were proposed by Congress not sovereign body politics. (clearly illustrated by previous citations on my part which you feel under no obligation to refute, yet claim I need to check references)

There is an obvious difference between the colonies declaring independence against tyranny and the northern union tyrannically suppressing the southern confederacy.

The colonies opposed tyranny, the south opposed tyranny and the only difference is the south lost the conflict of force. Is it me or is it just plain comical you are unable to recognize force was the arbitrator when comparing two different outcomes of opposing tyranny?

This debate is useless, it's not going anywhere, and hence I am not going to debate this with you any more.

Ok, but try not to make it so easy for me to disprove you using your own definitions of State and Article V of the Constitution against you if you do make another post.