Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.” A prescient and oft repeated quote that is pertinent to the situation.
When our founders created the system of government for our constitutional republic, they built in layers of protection from federal control over the lives of people in the states. Over time those protections have been eroded as the federal bureaucracy has seized power. One of the biggest changes that led to the creation of the permanent political class was the 17th amendment.
Our founders created a system where Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. In this original system the senate was bound by obligation to look out for the best interests of their specific states. Under the ‘advise and consent‘ rules of Senate confirmation for executive branch appointments, the intent was to ensure the presidential appointee -who would now carry out regulatory activity- would not undermine the independent position of the states.
The nucleus of corruption amid every element of the federal institutions of government is the United States Senate. The U.S. Senate, also known as the “upper chamber,” is the single most powerful elected element in modern federal government.
The Intelligence Branch is the most powerful branch of government. However, the U.S. Senate is the most powerful assembly of federally elected officials. We pretend the IC branch doesn’t exist; that’s part of our problem. At least we admit the Senate exists.
All other elected federal corruption is dependent on a corrupt and ineffective Senate. If we correct the problems with the Senate and reconnect the representation within the chamber to the state-level legislative bodies, we will then see immediate change. However, there would be ZERO institutional allies in this effort.
When the 17th amendment (direct voting for Senators) took the place of state appointments, the perspective of ‘advise and consent’ changed. The senate was now in the position of ensuring the presidential appointee did not undermine the power of the permanent bureaucracy, which is the root of power for the upper-chamber.
Senate committees, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, etc. now consists of members who carry an imbalanced level of power within government. The senate now controls who will be in charge of executive branch agencies like the DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA, ODNI, DoD, State Dept and NSA, from the position of their own power and control in Washington DC.
In essence, the 17th amendment flipped the intent of the constitution from protecting the individual states to protecting the federal government.
Almost every source of federal issue: ex. spending, intervention and foreign assistance, conflict with the states, burdensome regulation, surveillance and spying on American citizens, the two-tiered justice system and the erosion of liberty & individual rights (see COVID examples), can be sourced back to the problem created by the 17th amendment.
Because of the scale of their power, the Senate will not give up control easily; and every institution of society and government will actively work to block/stop We The People from taking back control of the upper chamber. Every entity from Wall Street to multinational corporations, big tech, banks, foreign governments and world organizations would align against us. When you truly understand the epicenter of the corruption, then you are able to see the tentacles extending from it.
It would be easy to say “repeal the 17th amendment;“ it is ‘another kettle of fish’ entirely to walk through the process to make that happen. Yes, ultimately, we do need a full repeal of the 17th amendment and return the selection of the senators from each state with a nomination and appointment process within the state legislature. [Common Explainer Here]
Seventeenth Amendment- “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.” (link)
Prior to the 17th amendment, there was significant state level corruption as business interests and senate candidates worked in power groups with party officials to attain the position. Politicians seeking Senate seats began campaigning for state legislative candidates in order to assemble support.
The state legislative races then became a process of influence amid powerful interests seeking to support their Senate candidate. Get the right people in the State legislature and you can get the Senator appointed.
Those state-level entities, bankers, wealthy people of influence, later became the permanent K-Street lobbying groups once the 17th amendment was ratified. In essence, they just shifted the location of their influence operation from the state to an office in Washington DC. [Those same power groups, albeit much larger, now write the physical legislation we see in congress.] Additionally, prior to the 17th amendment, there were issues of vacancies in federal senate seats as state legislatures could not agree on an individual Senator.
The biggest issue following the passage of the 17th amendment became Senators who were no longer representing the interests of their state. Instead, they were representing the interests of the power elite groups who were helping them fund the mechanisms of their re-election efforts.
A Senator only needs to run for re-election every six years. The 17th amendment is the only amendment that changed the structure of the congress as it was written by the founders.
Over time, the Senate chamber itself began using their advice and consent authority to control the executive and judicial branch. The origination of a nomination now holds the question: “Can this person pass the Senate confirmation process?” The Senate now abuses this power to ensure no one challenges them. Additionally, the Senate began using their oversight capacity to control elements within the executive branch and judicial branch. The full scope of that issue in modern form is OUTLINED HERE – which is the cornerstone of the Intelligence Branch of Government.
If we can repeal the 17th amendment and return the selection to the state legislature, you can see where the background work of Tactical Civics and Extreme Federalism begin to take on importance. [NOTE: Within the repeal effort we would need to include a recall process for states to reach out and yank back their Senator if they go astray; the ability to recall was missing in the original construct of the framers; it would need to be added.]
◊ PATH ONE is the primary platform of the presidential candidate…. a visible and emphasized mandate that includes: “vote me into office and you are voting to repeal the 17th amendment “. This specific election issue would need to be the #1 priority of the candidate and spoken at every event.
This approach gives presidential candidate Donald Trump the mandate to demand congress to act if he won the 2024 election. We need a warrior of epic strength, resolve and fortitude. We need Donald Trump.
◊ PATH TWO is the parallel path built along with the 2024 election platform path and put into place in the event that Congress refused to accept the mandate.
Obviously, this would be an ugly battle. The second path is a convention of states in the first year of President Trump’s second term in office.
The ‘convention of states‘ would be detailed, strategically planned, and the future schedule determined during the 2024 GOP convention preceding the November election (assuming the right candidate wins). That way, if congress refuses to act on their own, within say the first 100 days of the new administration, the state legislatures will then assemble a convention for the singular and limited purpose of one action item: “repeal the 17th amendment “. That’s it. Full Stop. Nothing more. Nothing else entertained.
There is a lot more to this, and a lot more to cover in discussion of this. However, this is the path that can resolve most of the issues we face with an out-of-control federal government. The shift in power would kneecap the Intelligence Branch of Government by re-instituting genuine oversight and control. A repeal of the 17th amendment stops Senators from campaigning, needing to raise money and puts them directly into the accountability position as a steward for the interests of their state.
The people within each state would then have a mechanism to address any negative federal action by contacting their state legislative representative. In a worst-case scenario, a rogue Senator could be removed within days if they support any federal legislative activity that is not in alignment with the state interest. This approach also wipes out most of the power amid the Senate Majority Leader, as he/she could also be recalled by the state and would be less likely to work against the interests of the majority in the chamber.
The House of Representatives was created to be the voice of the people, ie, “The Peoples’ House.” However, the U.S. Senate was structurally created to be the place where state government had representation in the federal government decision-making. The 17th amendment completely removed state representation, and we have been in an escalating battle over state’s rights ever since.
Overlay that DC structural issue with the fact that almost all of the bureaucracy created by this skewed DC system is now in place to defend itself from any outside effort to change it, and you get this UniParty problem that Donald Trump fully exposed.
Repeal the 17th amendment and we would see the most significant restoration of freedom, liberty and social balance in our lifetime.
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2024/01/24/why-james-madison-trembled-at-the-prospect-of-an-article-v-convention/
As do I.
I believe they have always intended for patriots to be reduced to seeing such a Convention as the last and only chance to effect change, and we would get it, in spades, courtesy of one of the many already written Communist Constitutions that have long awaited that day.
Just as Canada’s Constitution was replaced by hard Communist Pierre Trudeau’s Charter.
Article V does not permit a new Constitution. It clearly says a convention is for proposing amendments as part of THIS Constitution.
Article V is a process that operates within the framework of the Constitution. There is no vehicle for rewriting it. Please read the text of Article V to better understand it.
Most correct, and encourage all to view the many other Constitutional positions within her site. Thanks you Hoosier Mama.
Mark Levin tells us an article 5 convention of the states would be limited to the issues for which it was specifically called. However, any student of history knows exactly what happened at the constitutional convention that was supposed to merely modify the articles of confederation. I have no faith whatsoever that an article 5 convention would follow the rules.
Mark Levin is an IC POS.
Anything he says is either suspect or BS.
I do not trust the guy . . . at all.
The way he has been pushing for that Constitutional Convention as if that is the only way to resolve things and after all, he is the big self-proclaimed expert on the law.
Thank you, I absolutely do not trust Levin.
You’re right, I’m suspecting the entire purpose of his show is an attempt to give us a Charter.
(Also, the way he stabbed Mark Steyn in the back.)
It is not a constitutional convention. It is a convention for proposing amendments which is not authorized to write and entire Constitution.
What about John Birch Society? Are they IC controlled also? They feel and have felt that way for many years. To much corruption at every level. look at our elections and what many states did or did not do.
Don’t know about now.
At one time, they were righteous.
Also genteel.
But take out ‘trembled’, & replace with ‘would go ballistic’ …at the prospect…
We know Mark Levin is a liar because he told us Ted Cruz was a Natural Born Citizen who was eligible to run for president.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother had been born in the USA but was living in Canada when Ted was born. His father,Raphael Cruz, was born in Cuba where he was a pro-Castro protestor. I’m not sure Raphael ever became a US citizen through the naturalization process.
Ted doesn’t even meet ONE of the 3 Constitutional requirements for being POTUS…no matter what Mark Levin tells you!
As a citizen of the US living abroad, a parent must register the birth of a child to make him or her a US natural born citizen. Mrs. Cruz followed the law and he is a natural born citizen.
No. You’re wrong, Betsy Ross. A piece of paper cannot make a person into a Natural Born Citizen. One is born that way if they meet 3 requirements. They must be (1) born on US soil to (2) a US Citizen father and (3) a US Citizen mother. If they fail to meet all 3 of these requirements they are not eligible to be POTUS.
Great article explains:
“There are five types of Citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. All Citizens have equal rights as a member of the society but not all Citizens have the privilege and legal constitutional eligibility requirements to be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military under Article II of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation. The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a restrictive clause not an inclusive clause. The “natural born Citizen” legal term of art is rooted and defined by “natural law”, not man-made positive “statutory laws”. The laws of nature and nature’s God create natural born Citizens. Man-made statutory laws can create new and more “Citizens” but they cannot create “natural born Citizens”. “
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/
Exactly.
I am going to combine my reply to the first four comments because everyone one of those comments have false and historically incorrect information. First from Hoosier Mama ,Publius Hulda is not a constitutional lawyer or an expert on Article V. Right off she lies about James Madison “trembling” at the prospect of an Article V convention. He was commenting on the idea of having another constitutional convention so soon after the 1786 convention. The mock convention held in Williamsburg was to show the legislator delegates how an actual convention would be run, not to propose specific amendments to a real convention. Second Marquis’ statement about the new preplanned constitutions out there are irrelevant. The amendment process is limited and cannot create a new constitution. Third, Robert Powell, don’t waste anyone’s time reading anything that Publius publishes. She is a kook and is not in any sense an expert on constitutional history regarding our constitution and amendment process. And last, Jeffery , I would take Mark Levin’s knowledge about the constitution any day. He is absolutely correct that the amendment can be limited and is limited by the identical resolutions passed by the required # of states (#34) to call the convention. The second part of Article V was inserted to bypass Congress’ power to amend the constitution and their only role is to set time and place and method of ratification. I am no expert on this subject, but I have been involved continually for the past 11 years studying the history and ins and out of an Article V amendment process, and I have heard what all the nay-sayers have to offer and I am confident that this is one way to get our country back on the right path. Learn more at https://conventionofstates.com/?ref=237 and check RESOURCES. I hope Sundance pushes this process more and there is no reason why we cant do both concurrently.
spacing;
hard to read.
You lost me at “I would take Mark Levin’s knowledge . . .” could you try creating paragraphs, double-click to create what looks like too much spacing while typing will only appear as a normal space between paragraphs and make it easier to read.
thanks
Quoting from Dennis but adding paragraphs requested by Bessie2003
===========
I am going to combine my reply to the first four comments because everyone one of those comments have false and historically incorrect information.
First from Hoosier Mama ,Publius Hulda is not a constitutional lawyer or an expert on Article V. Right off she lies about James Madison “trembling” at the prospect of an Article V convention. He was commenting on the idea of having another constitutional convention so soon after the 1786 convention. The mock convention held in Williamsburg was to show the legislator delegates how an actual convention would be run, not to propose specific amendments to a real convention.
Second Marquis’ statement about the new preplanned constitutions out there are irrelevant. The amendment process is limited and cannot create a new constitution.
Third, Robert Powell, don’t waste anyone’s time reading anything that Publius publishes. She is a kook and is not in any sense an expert on constitutional history regarding our constitution and amendment process.
And last, Jeffery , I would take Mark Levin’s knowledge about the constitution any day. He is absolutely correct that the amendment can be limited and is limited by the identical resolutions passed by the required # of states (#34) to call the convention. The second part of Article V was inserted to bypass Congress’ power to amend the constitution and their only role is to set time and place and method of ratification.
I am no expert on this subject, but I have been involved continually for the past 11 years studying the history and ins and out of an Article V amendment process, and I have heard what all the nay-sayers have to offer and I am confident that this is one way to get our country back on the right path. Learn more at https://conventionofstates.com/?ref=237 and check RESOURCES. I hope Sundance pushes this process more and there is no reason why we cant do both concurrently.
============
Thank you! Greatly appreciate this.
And what j x shows below in the text of Article V, it clearly lays out – there is no process for anyone to limit what is brought before such a convention. Pinkie swears to not allow other topics to be presented and acted upon won’t work.
Bessie-since the Common Law and Agency Law already existed for this process and everyone in the room knew the exact process of conventions, there was no need to go step by step to explain it. If you look at Article I there is not a step by step process for Congress to make a law either only that they pass one and the president signs it. Where does the Constitution say they must vet by a committee, hold hearings, vote by a certain percentage, give members “x” number of days to read it, amend the original bill before voting on it or anything other “rules”?? The Constitution is not a set of rules or processes–it is a set of authorities only, some for Congress, some for the President, some for the courts and yes, some for the states to decide. The have been many conventions between the states and not one have disobeyed the Common Law or Agency Law. To suggest the states would go to the trouble of obeying the Constitution to call a convention and then void all their work by disobeying both the Constitution and the law under which they operate is absurd.
The CoS amendment process is not limited.
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.
Note well, Amendments is plural.
JX- Your misread of the text comes from a lack of historical and legal foundation. A convention is not limited to how many amendments they might propose, but is limited to the type of amendments that are “germane” to the subject matter in the applications passed in agreement by 2/3 of the several states. The courts have on 2 occasions ruled that a convention can be limited to a single subject or a fixed set of subjects.
That’s a lot of words for
“I am a bad liar but am paid to try to influence you here.”
🤣👀👻
Full disclosure, Dennis Denton is the Western Regional Director for COS. That’s a paid position with an annual salary of up to $161,000 according to GlassDoor.com
That information is false that you saw on Glass Door. They use other companies or non profits to gather an average of salaries for similar positions and is not only highly inaccurate as it is a “guesstimate” but is not information that is published by any employer that they could anyone could actually verify. They do annual surveys and no company tells them what anyone makes. They give approximate salary ranges that are subject to experience, geographical location, degrees or certifications and industry all of which varies greatly.
You misrepresent what I said, Betsy. All I said was Dennis Denton is the Western Regional Director for the Convention of States. Do you dispute that? I also said that it is a paid position. Do you dispute that? I also said GlassDoor.com says that job pays as much as $161,000/yr. Actually, GlassDoor said the salary range was $96,000 to $161,000/yr. If that is “highly inaccurate” let Dennis Denton correct the record.
Dennis Denton, what do you have to say?
Spot on Dennis, thanks for countering the naysayers who are invested in the status quo for often unstated or contrary reasons. The opening Machiavelli quote by Sundance is quite appropriate–the enmity of “Con-Con-Con” wing nuts like the J-BS’ers show their cowardice to USE the Constitution to SAVE the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions any ability to limit what can be proposed or acted upon at a Constitutional Convention and anyone who says otherwise has an unstated agenda to convince the unwary to agree to said convention.
In other words, they are lying.
Jeffrey-That is completely inaccurate. The history shows that the Articles were a treaty written under international law and not a constitution. Each state legislature instructed their delegates separately under the law to “render the constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union” except for NY and MA. Their delegates did not end up participating due to their instructions. Students of history would read the 12 state resolutions where they can clearly see that the states did not send their delegates merely to “modify” the Articles. Also of note, the courts has always upheld the process as the founders practiced it and have on 2 occasions ruled that a convention can be limited to a single subject or a fixed set of subjects.
The “runaway convention” myth is just that…a myth. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention had the authority to write a Constitution upon finding the Articles inadequate.
In a piece written by Constitutional Attorney Michael Farris and published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Farris points out that one’s commitment to the runaway convention theory accompanied by a strong concern for its preservation represents Orwellian double-think, “Our belief that the Constitution is Supreme Law deserving respect and oaths of allegiance is utterly inconsistent with the notion that it was crafted by an illegal convention and ratified by an unsanctioned process that bordered on treason.”
By propagating the runaway convention theory, you are simply carrying the water for progressive activists of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. You owe it to yourself to at least read Dr. Farris’ article. The link is posted below. Our country is in real trouble. It is imperative that we not defame our Founders and that we completely understand the truth about a powerful Constitutional tool that can affect real change.
At some point soon we may all wish instead of endlessly bickering about worst-case scenarios, that we actually acted like the brave, freedom-loving patriots who founded this country.
https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2017/03/Farris_FINAL.pdf
That comment is out of proper historical context-Madison was not talking about an amendments convention, but about the talk of the state of New York to call a new general convention to start over on the Constitution in its entirety. He trembled at the thought because the Federalists prevailed to have a limited government and New York was more Anti-Federalist and wanted no central government at all. The Federal Convention of 1787 was long and difficult and almost did not finish the work due to several states bringing their own “plan” to push. There was much disagreement and debate it dragged on for month. That is why it took such compromise and time to write the Constitution we have now. What Publius has written is deliberate misinformation from someone who is not a constitutional scholar and is trying to spread fear because she is uninformed on so many levels. She was a bankruptcy attorney. Now she cherry picks a word or phrase out of context to disparage the founding fathers words through complete and utter mis-interpretation of that they actually said. Read the NY Circular Letter on July 26,1788, then Madison’s Nov 2, 1788 letter to George Turberville and not just take a charlatan’s one word out of context.
Then maybe people will actually pay attention to state elections!
Funny how that works, n’est-ce pas?
The Commies have accomplished so much destruction state by state in the darkness of a DC-centric political climate.
Furthermore, I consider that the Derp State must be destroyed!
Let us be clear . . .
The “Deep State” is not entitled to 10th Amendment protections!
Maybe Barack Obama wasn’t so confused after all . . . did he say 57 states?
Maybe he meant also the “Deep State” . . . the “Welfare State” and who knows what!
The 57 Islamic states, or nations, when he made his Freudian slip.
No matter how well intentioned or planned out, a CoS is a Pandora’s Box of massive proportions. The risks far outweigh the benefits, not because in this case the benefit is considerable, but because the risks are astronomical.
before the founders had their ConCon, the had a war, killed the bad guys troops and sent them all packing. dont we need a step like that? once you get rid of evil backstabbers, the concon becomes much less risky. imo, we need a divorce before anything else. i would settle just for expelling traitor state California from the union, then lettimg the rural areas back in as new california. imagine that dynamic alone could turn it all around.
California is MY state and I am not quite ready to give up on it yet!
I agree suejeane. I was a regional director for the COS western region , which included CA and there are very patriotic people working hard to promote an Article V convention.
The Article V process was included in the Constitution to avoid bloodshed not to encourage it first.
Well put!
The convention can only PROPOSE amendments and they have to be consistent with the identical resolutions that 34 state legislatures need to pass to even call the convention. COS ACTION which is the most popular with hover 5 million supporters and has passed 19 of 34 states needed. It has three areas to consider: Term Limits for federal offices, Fiscal Restraints on spending and Reducing the jurisdiction and power of the federal government. Any proposed amendments that receive a simple majority approval; each state gets one vote regardless of how many delegates are sent. Those proposals that meet that requirement must be ratified by 3/4 of the states to become part of the constitution. Suggest an amendment that would be so risky that 3/4ths of the states would ratify.
How many times every single day of the year do state governments and the federal government violate laws and regulations, ignore the Constitution, and ignore the rights of its citizens?
5 million whole supporters, eh? Now THAT is super popular in a nation with over 300 million citizens! BTW, does that count Soros, who has pushed for a CoS?
I’m more than aware of the parameters – as well as the fact that those who hate this nation and its Constitution will stop at nothing to destroy it. If you think that 3/4 of the states is an obstacle to anything, you are fooling nobody but yourself. I am and will always be a hard pass on a CoS and do all I can to prevent it.
Soros does not push for an Article V convention-in fact his money is behind most of the opposition to one. It would make no common sense to think that a Communist/socialist like Soros would be for the one thing that would end his power and influece.
Nice idea.
All I’m interested in talking about is July 13th.
Yes!!! If the 17th Amendment had been abolished back in John McCain’s time, his State would have sent him packing on his first “open borders” vote. He might have spent the rest of his days sweeping floors somewhere.
Not to mention that treasonous thumbs down to repealing Obamacare that McStain did. %6986@$^$ jerk!
That was the moment there was officially no denying that there was only one party in this country. And that party is hell bent on destroying the constitution and the citizens of this country.
I fear we have two options left to save this great land. First being remember remember the 5th of November.
The only other option, should option 1 fail, is all out Civil War II, electric bugalewwwww.
Sorry, I’m trying to bring some levity to the situation, because the thought of it and how close we truly are to that option is quite terrifying. It’s going to be a nasty nasty fight. Nobody wearing uniforms. Many accidental deaths will happen.
God if it be your will, please save us from evil and Tyranny and smite those whom wish us harm.
Would it have affected his role in the POW scandal, the Russia dossier scandal??
If the voters are well informed they vote their conscience ; the silent majority was built on misinformation of a 2 party system. It elected John McCain……
Voting is the only answer to change; legal voting regulations and enforcement are the crucial factor.
Voting for senators – well for any representation – needs to be done by well informed electorates. Waiting for voting for VP to catch on……..I’m working on a world I may never see. Legal voting is essential to it.
I had this same argument with a colleague 20+ years ago. I used the same arguments Sundance presents but couldn’t convince him of the destruction the 17th amendment has caused. “A heavy lift” is an understatement indeed. May as well go for the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and end the perpetual government indentured servitude while we’re at it.
How do we even get the Trump team to recognize this and go after it like Sundance proposed ???
The Federal Reserve, unless given a CDBC lifeline, will implode on itself, exposing the corruption of a fiat currency. That implosion will be Epoch, and open the door for other reforms, like the repeal of the 17th amendment.
It’s like asking a heroin addict to share his heroin. And the heroin addict has 29 kilos of H, 15 sawed off shot guns, meth to keep him awake, 17 rot weilers, land mines all around, and a partridge in a pear treeeee.
Excellent article. I am interested in the positon that the 10th Amendment might be sued as a lever by States, to act without the danger of a Article V Convention. I built this powerpoint upon request for a Constitutional JAG Lawyer, and it might be of use here. Why not to have a AV5 Convention or any other version of same. My thought is the 10th has much latent power by the individual State- Thoughts?
http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/41085340
I’ve been calling it a Con-Con-Con as well.
A Convention is a fatal hope, I fear.
The States DO NOT need the 10th Amendment to act!!!
The Constitution means the same with or without it.
Will check it out!
That’s what I think too – I mean, to work individually as a state, asserting the 10th Amendment, to choose to send Senators from the state who have been chosen by the state’s legislature according to the pre-17th Amendment procedure –
also voting as a state to limit the time to be served by any Senator sent from that state – I think that is an idea that could sweep from state to state across the country.
Right now the 17th is part of the Constitution.
As much as we would wish to do otherwise the Federal Govt would not accept any Senator from a state which did not elect them by popular vote and the US Senate would refuse to seat them. That’s the law and that’s why that bad law needs changing.
In 1995, the Supreme Court overturned the right of the states to set term limits on Congress by statue. At the time 23 states had done that. Absent a constitutional amendment, neither Congress nor the states may impose term limits. It took a constitutional amendment to limit presidents to just two elected terms. Current surveys show 85% of all Americans want term limits, but all the way back to the 1980s the number has never been lower that 70% so if Congress was representing the people wouldn’t we have them by now?? That means only by convention will be ever see term limits.
The unstated thought in today’s article is that the 17th crushed the 10th.
The problem is that there is no enforcement mechanism in the 10th amendment because it clarified states rights to decide things backing up the function of the US Senate protecting states. When the 17th amendment was ratified it remove the underpinning of states rights. To enforce the 10th we need to remove the 17th and there are only 2 ways to do that – Congress will never propose and amendment for that so only the states can do that through a convention.
Built this Balanced Budget Powerpoint for Publiushuldah. For those who reside here, her intellect is humbling and her site has voluminous material for the interested. She is without parallel in her craft. It was an honour to provide for her.mendme: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/31271808
Thank you, Robert! My opinion exactly of her intellect. When it comes to constitutional issues, I would rate her and her papers the best in the country.
I’m not really following the logic here. And sorry, I wouldn’t go anywhere near a convention of the states.
Question, and I’m asking in seriousness. Would repeal of the 17th amendment result in that significant an improvement without the elimination of the Federal Reserve? Or does elimination of the Federal Reserve require first repealing the 17th?
Federal Reserve is a completely different kettle of fish.
Return to the States their rightful position of selecting who their Legislature wants to represent the State’s interest puts returns the pattern of the Trinity to our Constitution, a balance between the needs of the federal, the needs of the states and the needs of the individual back into a workable context.
As Sundance says, there needs to be safeguards for the recall of said chosen Senators so that the State legislators aren’t easily made submissive to lobbyists and various constituents that might hold undue sway over the State legislators that choose who they send to DC.
History says Andrew Jackson got rid of that generation’s federal reserve and our nation survived just fine.
Great article Sundance !
Remove the 17th amendment and say good bye to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and the rest of the communist Senators in red states.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment…I’m all in (although the odds of it happening are slim to none). A convention of the states is way too dangerous IMHO. But this is all academic if we don’t win the election in November for Donald Trump.
Thoughts of a Convention always scares me because I don’t trust any representative that I don’t personally know and I don’t know any representatives personally because they could careless about getting to know the people that they “ represent “ .
Right now, McConnell runs the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, which is basically the hundreds of millions of dollars he collects from the monied interests who own our government. With this cash, McConnell decides which Uniparty candidate will win your state’s US Senate primary. The D’s do the same with their cash and Uniparty candidate.
After the 2 Uniparty candidates are purchased and on the general ballot, the state is forgotten.
Dump the 17th, and the same cash will spread into the state level, to do exactly what McConnell is doing now… selecting your US Senator… and forgetting about your state.
The same people, buying the same government.
Repeal of the 17th means each state’s legislature selects the Senator, not elected by voters.
So, party campaign funds for elections become a moot point.
Funds are always the point. The only point that the Uniparty cares about, with or without a 17th.
The closer to the actual voter the decisions are made the better. State representatives are much easier to hold to account than feds and local can be made to listen!
The Uniparty will always make decisions far away from the voter, and very close to their paymasters. Why should they care about voters? My state legislators are completely captive. They are held to account by their paymasters, who purchased them. This 17th talk is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
The point made here is that the 17th nationalized the corruption. State legislatures limit it in two ways: 1) it is local, meaning it benefits the state/local economy, trickling down to us little people instead of disappearing overseas in some multinational; 2) Competing corruption contained within the state limits said corruption, rather than opening it to foreign or globalist influence.
Nothing is limited. The same money buys the same Uniparty candidates. The same multinationals and foreigners will make the same purchases they do now. Nothing changes. The government is still owned by the same people.
A CoS is a very last resort IMO. It carries the most risk, AND could leave is with a truncated or, worse, repealed Bill of Rights.
There are smart people on both sides of this, saying competed opposite opinions. That tells me the chances of a CoS spinning out of control are high.
A convention carries ZERO risk. It can only propose amendments. It CANNOT ENACT THEM. With 30 so-called red states and 19 so-called blue states there is no chance of getting amendments ratified by 3/4 of the states unless they made sense. I would ask everyone to pick a subject (I will use the Bill of Rights) and list the 38 states you are sure would repeal them. Obviously you will not be able to do so, and that is exactly why there is no risk from a convention.
How I pray PDJT or someone in his orbit reads this site and follows Sundance.
We’re not the first to get angry at what we see in government. NJ Gov Lewis Morris used to get himself in a fair amount of hot water with his newspaper writings against his political opponents.
Address to Lord Lovelace
Lewis Morris, March 12, 1708/9
If th’ Addressers are Angry ’tis by no means unfit
That at once they discharge both their Spleen and their witt,
Since the Town is obliged they’le thank ’em no less
For a Scurvy Lampoon than a Fawning Address;
They’re both helps to discourse, and though never so mean
The world can discern ‘twixt the Witt and the Spleen;
And Honest Will Bradford is not so Morose
But he’le publish their Talents in Verse and in Prose;
That the Town mayn’t be wanting to render due praise
To those who So justly meritts the Bayes.
As Ravens and Night-owls their Voices betray
So Asses are certainly known when they bray.
And Spight of the Noise and bustle they’ve made
Mankind will believe that a Spade is a Spade.
That Bullies and Bankrupts, and Men without Store
Dull wretches that have not one Virtue or More,
The Pests of the Country, whose Practice has been
To flatter the Governor, and Lie to the Queen,
Have right to no favour in a Well-govern’d State
But to Swing in an Halter, or peep through a Grate.
The Just the Righteous Man
Lewis Morris, 1708/9
The Just the righteous man is brave
Nor to himselfe nor none a Slave
The giddy mob his Soull disdaines
The frownes of tyrants he contemns
Firme to his purpose bravely Stands
Unmovd by their unjust commands
When Angry Auster mows the main
An unmov’d Courage he’ll retaine
And in those Stormes that rouze the Deep
A firme unshaken mind he’ll keep
Nor is’t in natures power to make
His Just his righteous Soull to Shake
Nay Jove himselfe Should he discend
In thunder cannot make him bend
From his Just purpose no let all
Thats made to Instant ruine fall
He’d Sing at natures funerall.
In response to the indifference in England
to his charges against Governor William Cosby
Lewis Morris, After 1734
Complaints, if just, are very shocking things
and not encourag’d in the courts of Kings
t’accuse your Chief, they’ll construe to be meant
A Side reflection on the Government
and Senders mostly will defend the Sent.
that tis a Scandal to be deem’d not rich
which makes us leave no likely means untry’d
to gain wherewith to gratify our pride.
Virtue and Conscience, here, are words of course
that on mans conduc t have but little force
Place and preferment yield substantial joys
these are obtained by parting with such toys.
in my state, the only thing worse than an elected republican is an elected democrat. the repubicon leadership is a smaller version of the federal level. this is my opinion. I agree with repeal of the 17th, but I would like to know how the dynamic shifts when you get 2-bit hack globo-corporatist chamber of cokcsukcers at the state level voting for their own represenation at the federal level.
CoS followed by maximum Nullification and maximum Federalism followed by secession, as necessary.
Nearly coincident with the passage of The 17th Amendment (8Apr1913) was the Establishment of the Federal Reserve (23Dec1913). Together, they open the flood gates for massive corruption. Both need to be repealed.
The 16th & 17th Amendments are a binary weapon. Consolidate power in the Federal government by destroying the States’ voice in the United States government, then rob the wealth of The People. It’s no coincidence that these both came about at the same time as Wilson’s advisor, House, published his book about a permanent managerial bureaucracy than ran a new communist United States.
And lo & behold.., they made the citizenry & their posterity pay for it all with 16A.
1913 was a very bad year for America’s citizens.
The force multiplier for the corruption introduced by the 17th is the party seniority system recognized by the rules of the Senate. Not only do our Senators no longer care about their States, they care more for their party interests. Thus, the Uniparty.
I think the COS would take too long to get enough traction. I have worked on the balanced budget specific COS and it has gone no where in almost 10 years. We need an event to trigger a ground swell.
Let’s explore this hypothetical scenario.
Imagine Donald Trump wins the presidency and, shortly after taking office, he decides to declassify a large cache of intelligence community (IC) information. This information reveals that several Senators have been compromised—whether through blackmail, coercion, or other forms of undue influence. The details are shocking and show a clear pattern of corruption and manipulation within the upper echelons of government.
The public, already disillusioned by years of partisan gridlock and scandal, is outraged. The revelations spark a wave of grassroots activism, with citizens demanding greater accountability and a return to a system where Senators truly represent their states’ interests rather than being swayed by external pressures.
In this environment, the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment gains traction. Advocates argue that direct elections have allowed national special interests, foreign powers, and even elements within the government to exert undue influence over Senators. By returning the power of electing Senators to state legislatures, they claim, the integrity of the Senate could be restored, making it less susceptible to corruption and more focused on representing the states.
The grassroots movement quickly organizes, using social media and local meetings to spread their message. They frame the repeal of the 17th Amendment as a way to “take back the Senate” from corrupt influences and return power to the states. They argue that state legislatures, being closer to the people and more accountable on a local level, are better positioned to select Senators who will act in the best interest of their states, not outside forces.
Seems the globalists have succeeded in instilling enough fear in Americans who are paying attention that even the mention of a CoS causes a knee jerk reaction.
Many constitutional scholars will tell you that it was standard practise to call a convention between the colonies and then the states to iron out issues.
Thus it was natural for the framers of our Constitution to include this mechanism.
Most hear about the “runaway convention” that created the alternative to the Articles of Confederation. But most don’t know that the purpose was to STRENGTHEN the Confederation as not enough power had been given to the central government for it to effectively function. If I recall correctly, there was provision in the Call to Convene that empowered the delegates to do what they did.
This is why the Federalist Papers were created – to explain the revised system proposed. That our current Constitution was ratified indicates that the populace agreed.
Not enough education on this topic all around. Lack of knowledge means we rely upon the globalist fear mongers to tell us the truth.
In an era of corruption so broad and deep with most people suspect, self education is becoming more essential.
IF we do not have such a convention as proposed by Sundance, we might never break the strangle hold over our nation and we will indeed be depopulated and serfed.
I am for such a Convention of States.
I also am for amendments for term limits, balanced budget. Both of these tools will be bondaries to keep the globalists at bay.
bara.ex.nihilo You are correct about the delegates to the Constitutional convention and their “commissions”. I have read the actual commissions given to the delegates. All the states except New York and Mass were identical as follows
“devising, deliberating on, and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the federal constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the Union” New York and Mass added this to the above “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation ” .
COS Action project has a resolution that includes all three that you mention. Repealing the 17 would fall under reducing the power of the federal government. http://conventionofstates.com/?ref=237
STRENGTHEN the Confederation as not enough power had been given to the central government for it to effectively function
How’d that work out?
Let’s talk about State Legislatures that stood by an allowed unelected bureaucrats to implement Covid tyranny.
Then we can talk about the ones that have not acted against election/ballot fraud.
These are the legislatures that will send representatives to a CoS. Are we warm & fuzzy yet?
“There is a lot more to this…”
Yes. Option 2 is not viable. Just look at what State Legislatures allowed appointed tyrants to do during the plandemic.
Or look at what they haven’t done to secure elections.
They’re infested with the oligarchs & the CCP’s money too.
Please don’t expect them to do a dam thing to benefit the nation.
The job of the states is not to benefit the nation–it is to promote the prosperity of the states and to protect the individual liberties of the people. And the fact is that in 2021 after the resulting turmoil of the 2020 election, all 50 states passed election reform laws. 312 were passed and 10 governors vetoed some or all of them in their states (2 vetoed some, 8 all of them) resulting in 285 new laws enacted in a total of 42 states so no the states did not sit by and do nothing. Since that time a number of states has now passed additional election laws to further what they did in 2021.
I disagree for 2 reasons: the Anti-Federalists pointed out that the State Legislatures wouldn’t be able to rule the Senators. The Senators would have a lot of power, could form strong relationships that would not make it easy for the States to control them. Secondly, the real problem with Congress is that the Constitution gives them the absolute power to make their own rules; the employees run the business. SCOTUS found the implied power that the Courts and President could also make their own rules. Over time, Congress has decided they don’t want ownership of anything so they mostly leave the management to the Courts and President. The result is chaos.
The Senators can be recalled on a dime by state legislatures if the 17th is revoked.
So, where is this hidden power of Senators selected without the 17th existing coming from over those who send them to DC?
You are mistaken on the rules part. The rules the Senate can make are not laws but procedural. Things like hours and days they meet in general session and the same for committees. They set rules for speeches on the floor, visitors being recognized in session, how committees work and how many committees, decide which committees will be permanent which are temporary and which bills go to which committee, rules of decorum among members etc. The rules are strictly operational. The control of the state legislatures, was that they told Senators how they were to vote and if they disobeyed, the state legislature recalled and replaced them until the 17th amendment. The anti-federalist argument was resolved by the fact that the state could recall them.
Hopefully, until that day when the “17th” changes. PDJT should be better trained to bob and weave his way through the Senate stonewalling and corruption.
How Presidents Use Vacancies and Temporary Appointments to Achieve Policy Priorities
Repeal of the 17th Amendment has been the one thing that I have always wanted to see happen since understanding how that amendment had cut one of the legs off the 3-leg stool that kept our government in a balance between federal, state, and individual.
There may be a 3rd Option , which will be long and tedious, but avoids the danger of calling for a Constitutional Convention as there are no tools to stop such a convention from changing anything else that any member of the convention can bring to the floor and this is happening right now, with the National Popular Vote movement, and when 2/3 of the State voters pass it will forever end the Electoral College.
At this moment that movement only needs another 3 or 4 States to pass that law and they will have succeeded in their movement without having either a convention or an act of Congress.
The left has been very patiently, and quietly, getting voters in States to pass their version of the National Popular Vote act. They actually use similar talking points which got the 17th Amendment passed, as in ‘why let your legislators choose who goes to the Senate in DC when it should be the voice of the people to say who they want to represent them’ – and so far it has worked.
There was one State, that had passed the Popular Vote Act that the voters realized what the real purpose of it was, and they actually had another vote and undid their previous vote in support of that act.
If that can be done to end the electoral college, surely a similar process can be initiated to repeal the 17th Amendment. But it will be a true from-the-ground-up process, at a time where most peoples patience has worn thin.
This website, Save our States has been actively working to inform people and to end the National Popular Vote scheme, so may have some ideas on how a movement to repeal, or simply end the process of the 17th by getting the States themselves to pass laws returning the responsibility for selecting Senators to represent their States in DC back to their State legislature, and incorporate a means to recall said Senators if certain things happen that the State legislature, or a popular vote of the citizens of the State see fit to initiate their recall process.
https://saveourstates.com/
Unfortunately Bessie, Congress will never propose to repeal the 17th amendment because it takes their power away. Therefore the only way is for the states to call a convention to make that proposal to gain back their power to take the power away in DC. You can’t have it both ways. Voters are not passing the NPVC-it is the state legislatures and they will end up in court over this as it can only be done by amendment. An Article V convention comes from the people through their state legislatures now and it is the only process the Constitution gives us. The states cannot decide by statute to change what is in the Constitution-only by amendment. The same with recall-you cannot pass a statue because once the 17th amendment became popular vote that took all authority over their time in office away from the state legislatures and citizens do not vote on amendments either.
Thank you for the clarification Sundance, much appreciated. Just the threat of a COS might help to get the attention of the Congress critters and encourage better behavior on their part. That’s a BIG maybe!
About half of the amendments we have now started with an Article V application being passe by the states, which includes the Bill of Rights, women’s right to vote and term limits on the president. But, while Congress did in those cases see the handwriting on the wall and proposed those amendments ending the need for the states to continue to a convention, you really have to know that that is never going to happen now. The expansion of power is such that they are absolutely not going to propose any amendment that will take away a power they took for themselves.
While this is a noteworthy goal, I don’t think it can be achieved within our current state. There is no support for that at the national or State level. Even ruby red States are full of RINOs that would oppose it.
Trump never mentioned it to my knowledge, so there is that too.
Only a large, energetic movement can bring this to fruition. However, there is no such thing…
So…. The pragmatic reality of where things stand is the 17th will stay for the foreseeable future.
If thee is another way to restore the Republic, I’d still like to hear it. But, as I’ve already said in previous posts, we’re past the Republic stage. We’re at the stage when the Empire consolidates. Might take a generation for that.
America is not gone. It’s just existing under a different form. Sorry for my bluntness. It’s what I think.
Shake it off. Rub some dirt on it. 👊!👊!👊! & 🙏🏻 4 🇺🇸
🙂
The federal government has no say in the Article V process so it means nothing that Trump has not mentioned it or you don’t see support at the national level even though there is some. And there is far more support for this in the states that you know. National polling has shown that.
In this, we disagree. I’ve seen enough of the absolute corruption at the state levels to know that even if we didn’t have the 17th amendment, there would still be senate corruption. To me, repealing the 17th is a pipe dream for restoring liberty. If we can’t get all that corruption at the state level fixed by now, and Covid showed beyond any doubt how badly corrupt the states are, then even repealing the 17th isn’t going to change anything.
Don’t forget that they also illegally limited the House Of Representatives to 435 members by law instead of an amendment. The Constitution says there’s to be one representative for every 30,000 residents. We would have around 15,000 congressmen right now. Let’s see lobbyists try to influence that many people.
That number is a misread of what the Constitution says. It set the initial numbers for each state knowing that as the nation grew the number would increase. It does not specify 1 rep for every 30,000 people. It restricts the number of reps to no more than one for 30,000. The Necessary and Proper Clause does allow Congress to make a law to control how many members it would have as long as they do not give (without an amendment) any 30,000 people more than one rep.
This is a keeper. And a planner. Thank you.
This is most exciting platform proposal I’ve seen yet. Great explanation and outline – Thanks!
I favor returning to Constitutional provisions, in particular the Electoral College which is a function of the State Legislature and not determined by popular vote. So too for the selection of Senators by the States. But the Founders did not envision Parties, and in particular did not envision the evils of the One-Party State. So what would happen after the repeal of the 17th Amendment in a State like Massachusetts (where I happen to live)? Is there any reason to assume the Democrat Legislature would select anyone better than Faucahontas and Malarky, who ‘represent’ us now?
I guess one could argue that the new power of the Legislature to select Senators might inspire the citizens of this Commonwealth to start electing more rational State representatives, might start running alternative candidates, might take an interest in booting out the reps from their ‘safe’ seats. Or would it change anything?
I really don’t know. Do you?
If we repeal the 17th amendment the stat legislature would control how they vote as well as who is in the Senate. The states would be able to protect themselves and their citizens from having the own Senator vote on anything that affected your rights or the states’ authority. They would not be there to represent you or misrepresent you but to protect the states and their people from federal authority not granted by the Constitution. And yes it would likely influence you to vote in some cases for better state legislators.
Question, SD. And I’m sure it’s been asked I just haven’t read all comments.
If they manage to repeal this amendment, wouldn’t this just begin to focus money and corruption on the state level officials and the DS tentacles would just slither to that region?
Essentially just sinking the swamps reach into the lower belly of our elections. And actually corrupting our states on the most base levels?
Because each state is an individual bite, the citizens should have a more effective effort at exposing and controlling the inevitable corruption that seems to accompany politics.
Currently, many US Citizens have the hive mind that change is impossible, that we must continue with the current system and hope that changing the players will reign in the corruption.
We no longer believe as the Founding Generation did that WE are the source of power and change, using critical thinking and common sense. We have lost our sense of civic duty.
When WE change, then our government will change.
The left continually pushes for greater and greater consolidation of power at higher levels. Example, the “unification” of local school districts in the name of “economies of scale.” The actual point was for the unions to have fewer and fewer school boards to negotiate with annually and to corrupt, with the ultimate goal (not yet completely achieved) of having everything flow down from a State Superintend of Schools’ Office, where, conveniently the unions could focus all their efforts and desires. So, with this example in mind, it’s easy to see why the 17th Amendment was such a coup for the Progressives. Virtually all lobbying moved from what now would be 50 State Capitols, to the one National Capitol. Very, very much more efficient for the corrupting classes!
And yet it is still unconstitutional for Congress or any part of the federal government to control any part of the education system as education was left to the states.
Sundance, you began this epic “Trump Staffing 2025” deep-dive into the core problems with what our “post-Constitution” government has become by warning us that it would take 15 YEARS to restore the way we are governed to its constitutional principles.
Do you really mean to hang the demand — that Donald Trump make repealing the Amendment that gives the people the right to elect their Senators a “visible and emphasized ” promise — around his neck for THIS election?
This turn-of-events has the potential to undermine your entire project; undermine the credibility of everything you have been working for .
Are you really advising Trump (and your grateful readers) to stake everything on this (“vote me into office and you are voting to repeal the 17th amendment “) “roll-of-the-dice,” right now?
Surely, it makes more sense for DT to make those gains that he can (in this term; which he/we must win): to at least “Ham-String the Swamp”; to hobble it, expose its operations (and its key figures) to sustained cpublic ensure. And to consolidate these gains, in order to provide the the momemtum of public support afor entirely taking away the Fourth Branch (Bureaucrats) of Government’s illegitimate Senatorial protection.
Does this consummation not have to happen at some later time in those 15 YEARS ?
Sooner, yes (if we the people can bring this about), or later. Or maybe, in the time secured by DT’s successes, now — first — we might come-up with a more-palatable (less-draconian) way to accomplish your goal re: restrarining the U.S. Senate.
But, surely not (hopelessly) “right now.”
Because the process of a Convention of States is currently underway, it is possible for any candidate to bring it to light for the purpose of what Sundance has proposed.
The general public is under-educated about its existence, purpose, and that currently 19 States have agreed to holding one. Publicity could enable more pressure to bare upon state legislatures to pass the resolution, bringing the convention into existence. It would also expose those who wish to keep the current corruption in place.
Yes, someone campaigning for this using their own campaign will bring hope in the hearts of the electorate who have had enough of the violations / lawlessness and wants a solution.
This is independent of a Trump Presidency, so could be achieved during such a term.
The US Declaration of Independence and detailed as a matter of law in the US Constitution and crowned with the Bill of Rights was the apex of the West.
While the product of brave yet imperfect men it can still be improved by those of goodwill armed with hindsight even now.
Yet no system of government can ever rise above the character of those who compose it.
Troed to get rid of the 17th amendment in 1959 or 1960.
I am 83 and one of the first votes I cast was on the 17th amendment.
Then it was portrayed as “we want to elect our senators” don’t we??
To an 18 or 19 yr old …..sure we do.
One vote I wish I could change.
Tried 🙂
Facts are stubborn things.
Thanks for once again sticking to the facts SD.
Not sure we have enough educated and moral people to carry out a convention of states …… but it is a fact that is the solution to the problem.
While the 17th Amendment must be repealed there is no way I would support a CoS while the D & R parties exist. Those two parties need to be destroyed before the country can get on the path to recovery.
From what I understand, while repealing the 17th amendment wouldn’t stop corruption, it would certainly make it much harder to consolidate into a single entrenched beast like it is currently, right? State politics might be quirky, unconventional, and responsive to the wishes of the people enough to make the kind of top-down control that the deep state currently has impossible.
Let me know what I’m missing.
Here, here, Sundance! I’ve been trying to convince my family and friends for years to look to the XVII Amendment as the source of our current problems. With the status of Senators made to look like the House of Representatives on steroids, the states list their rights to influence legislation and became vassals of the federal government.
Agreeing 100%. Repealing the 17th would make it nearly impossible for a Massachusetts governor to become the U.S. senator from Utah, or a First Lady from Arkansas (or D.C.) to become the U.S. senator from New York.
100pct!!!!!!!
The States have lost representation and state legislatures are now merely junior subsidiary bodies rather than independent ones.
No doubt needs to be abolished, it was created for a reason, not to be a popularity contest like the House is. States need reps in congress, we have none, all we have is 1 political party, the Uni party, we need reps in congress that can actually do something and is elected by the states legislature.
Others that can be considered: term limits; balance budget; keeping SCOTUS at 9 judges. These and the repel of the 17th.
Another must read by every citizen. Vital change if it can be orchestrated.
The interesting thing is with but a few of these articles, CTH inspires in me the flickering hope that our system can be reformed. Actually, the strong possibility, and the greatest probability that we will still recognize what comes after.
Worse than the 17th, ignoring the 10th completely is what created the Federal behemoth. For those who want a Constitutional Congress, here a new amendment: “We really, really mean the 10th amendment”
I am so disgusted by what I’ve seen lately with the clapping seals in congress applauding the titular leader of a foreign country! The fact that those clapping seals, and all but Thomas Massie, are controlled by that same foreign country’s lobby is the salt in the wound. Add to that the bribes from all the other mega lobbies like pharma and it would be easy to conclude that ‘our’ representatives are playing for another team.
Why couldn’t the AG of each state file charges against each and every one of them for breach of their fiduciary duty to the electorate of their states; that should provide the leverage needed to obtain the support needed for the abolition of the 17th Amendment; of course I’m praying for a victory for our team in the November 5 election.
It is early in the morning of another gorgeous Tennessee day – the sun is shining and I’ve had my morning start with two double cappuccinos – no the caffeine isn’t the reason why I’m fired up; its more fundamental than that. I left Canada in 2010 and California in 2016 to live in the free state of Tennessee but there is a ton of work to do before our country is put right.