“What’s Harry Reid done for us lately?”
That question was posed in one of the informal voter opinion sessions in Nevada hosted by Fox News during the recent election cycle. The constitutional response would be: U.S. senators are not supposed to represent the citizens of the state.
When the First Continental Congress was convened via a resolution of the Congress of the Confederation, one of the first issues discussed on May 29, 1787, was the balance of power for a newly created federal government:
3. Resolved, that the National Legislature ought to consist of two branches.
4. Resolved, that the member of the first branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States every _____ for the term of _____; to be of the age of ____years at least. …
5. Resolved, that the members of the second branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by those of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual Legislatures, to be of the age of ____ years at least. …
James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers No. 45: “The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures.” John Jay, co-author of The Federal Papers is quoted: “Jay then informed Governor Clinton that, unlike the Senate, where the two-thirds rule was in force for treaties and impeachment, the lower house had nothing to do with treaties; it represented the people whereas the Senate represented the states – for the Federalists always a significant distinction.”
The framers of the Constitution wisely understood the absolute necessity of ensuring we the people would have the right to vote for our representative in Congress, and at the same time because they all jealously guarded freedom and liberty, the states must also have equal representation. We the people would have the ability to remove via the ballot box miscreants and scoundrels, while the state legislatures could recall their U.S. senators who acted against the best interests of their states.
The Senate was supposed to be a sort of check and balance, but that disappeared when U.S. senators began to be voted into office by special interests and mobs demanding more from the people’s treasury. The absolute right of the states to equal representation was wiped out when the 17th Amendment was declared ratified April 8, 1913.
The limited legislative authority delegated to U.S. senators is very important. They confirm federal judges, U.S. Supreme Court justices, the U.S. attorney general, secretary of state and other Cabinet heads – individuals who can and have had a negative impact on the states of the Union over the decades.
The U.S. Senate ratifies treaties. Just look at the destruction of jobs in the states because of “agreements” like NAFTA (No American Factories Taking Applications) and treaties like CAFTA and GATT/WTO. Millions of jobs shipped overseas to Mexico and South America while Americans stand in unemployment lines. Look at the destruction to our industrial and manufacturing sectors – nearly wiped out along with millions of jobs because of those unconstitutional treaties. Then there’s the harm to our nation from our illegal participation as a member of the communist U.N. and the treaties coming out of that rancid operation. That is why the states were to have equal representation in the U.S. Senate – to check a president on treaties.
By having the state legislatures appoint their two U.S. senators, the citizens of the states actually benefit in far greater measure than by direct vote. States would appoint senators who would get the U.S. out of the U.N., Bretton Woods, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT/WTO and begin to impeach activist judges whose decisions directly impact the lives of citizens in the sovereign 50 states. That is the constitutional solution.
Several major efforts are under way to repeal the 17th Amendment, but is that the right course to take? You can’t repeal an amendment that clearly was not ratified by enough states.
In March 2009, I personally went to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., joined by two colleagues. Our purpose was to obtain, which we did, court-certified documents regarding the ratification of that amendment. Having obtained them, there is no doubt the amendment was not ratified by enough states at the time. Five states allegedly didn’t ratify until months after then-Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan declared it ratified! All of the historical documents, court-certified, are available.
We find in the official publication called “Constitution Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, Eighty-Seventh Congress,” Thomas Jefferson said, in part: “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.”
Since many state legislatures were out of session at the time of the vote, have they been deprived of equal Suffrage in the U.S. Senate because they did not participate in the ratification of this amendment? Have those states been deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate as well as the states that took no action, like the state of Georgia?
Is fraud (non ratification) enough to allow a state to declare the amendment null and void? Jefferson also wrote in the manual cited above: “Question has arisen as to the power of a State to recall its assent to a constitutional amendment (V. 7042).” What about that?
How do the states resolve this critical issue? It will not come from Congress; that is a given cemented in concrete.
I am not a lawyer and have no legal training. However, one thing I do believe: It’s absolutely wrong to correct a legal fiction using a method which would give legitimacy to that fiction. The same constitutional crisis exists over Obama/Soetoro and the growing call for impeachment. He is without question a usurper. You cannot impeach someone who has legally never held that office. Giving legitimacy to fraud demeans our Constitution and takes away honor and integrity for our system of government purchased with rivers of blood.
What options do the states of the Union have should just one state legislature take the courageous step in challenging the ratification?
A state legislature could pass a resolution that would be sent to their attorney general to file a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court. Why the Supreme Court? I think because it would be an original-jurisdiction case: Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; – to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; – to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; – to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; – to controversies between two or more states; – between a state and citizens of another state; – between citizens of different states; – between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Such a lawsuit most certainly is a controversy to which the United States would be the prime party involving fraudulent ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Shouldn’t ratification of amendments to the U.S. Constitution be subject to judicial scrutiny where fraud is clearly in evidence? The answer is clearly yes.
What about treaties in place should the amendment be declared not ratified? Realistically speaking, you couldn’t just declare all the treaties passed since 1913 null and void on the spot, even though legally it would be correct. However, the House of Representatives can introduce a bill like H.R. 4759, which has been languishing since March, to get us out of NAFTA. Simply apply the normal process to get us out of those treaties.
The long over due states’ rights movement is growing at lightening speed. Americans are learning about the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the real meaning of the Welfare Clause and nullification. For the states to fully regain their sovereignty, the 17th Amendment must be challenged. If a state legislature is happy with the individual “voted” into office to serve in the Senate, they can keep that individual. In a calm, rational manner, the problem can be worked. Is there one state in our Union with the courage to challenge this fraud and restore their right to be represented in Congress, or will they remain little more than doormats for corrupt senators?