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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas What is quantum computing? 12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything' Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos! 'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats Texas Flood Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ? Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia 329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive

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: 245
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  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.

#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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

#7. To: nolu_chan, Critter, richard9151 (#6)

Ok, I think I see my mistake. I was interpreting Article I Section 4 to mean that the place of choosing could never be changed, when it actually means it cannot be changed by simply passing a law, but an amendment would be acceptable.

Thanks everyone.

Dakmar  posted on  2007-06-01 18:18:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

It only changes (probably for the worse)

That was my reason for starting this thread. I think the state legislatures would have a much better sense of what is in their own state's interest than voters at large.

Dakmar  posted on  2007-06-01 18:19:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

No. This changed their sufferage in the Senate. The states are no longer represented in the Senate; only the people are. THE STATE ITSELF NO LONGER CHOOSES WHO REPRESENTS IT IN THE SENATE. And, the states are the only parties to the contract known as the Constitution; the people are not a party to the contract.

To understand this it is neccessary to understand that there are two Constitutions; the one for Washington, DC, and the original with only the original 13 Amendments.

When you begin to understand the separation of powers that we have always heard about, this is actually what it was; the separation of powers between the people, and the states.

richard9151  posted on  2007-06-01 20:21:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

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