[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances

STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones

This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat


Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Was the 17th Amendment strictly forbidden?
Source: US Constitution
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 31, 2007
Author: mostly madison?
Post Date: 2007-05-31 21:23:47 by Dakmar
Keywords: None
Views: 262
Comments: 21

Article 1

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.


Poster Comment:

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I take this to mean that the FF meant that Senators must always be chosen by State legislatures, as described in Article 1, Section 3:

Section 3. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

And, finally, the 17th Amendment:

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote

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

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

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

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.

#1. To: Dakmar (#0)

Was the 17th Amendment strictly forbidden?

Sounds like it.

Critter  posted on  2007-05-31   22:14:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Critter, nolu_chan, Dakmar, all (#1)

Was the 17th Amendment strictly forbidden?

Absolutely. The Constitution is a contract, by and between the states. As such, you can not alter the status of any contractee without that contractee agreeing to the change. Thus, it would need 100% acceptance.

However, this amendment, just as the income tax amendment, was never completely ratified; it was adopted and declared adopted. An adoptive act is meant (according to Black's Law Dictionary) for a specific geographical area.

Now, since United States citizenship applies to Washington, DC, and all United States citizens are RESISDENT in the several states........ what geographical area to you suppose the 17th Amendment applies too?

richard9151  posted on  2007-06-01   1:30:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: richard9151, Critter, Dakmar (#3)

Absolutely. The Constitution is a contract, by and between the states. As such, you can not alter the status of any contractee without that contractee agreeing to the change. Thus, it would need 100% acceptance.

The compact entered into contained the following provision.

Article V.

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

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-06-01   3:43:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu_chan, Critter, Dakmar, all (#4)

and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Exactly what I said.

richard9151  posted on  2007-06-01   11:58:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 5.

#6. To: richard9151, Critter, Dakmar (#5)

and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Exactly what I said.

No. The 17th does not deprive equal Suffrage in the Senate. It only changes (probably for the worse) the method the State uses to elect its senators. Each state still has two senators.

It should be noted that states were actually denied equal suffrage after the War Between the States (Civil War).

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-06-01 16:08:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]