2 votes

What was the logic behind the 17th amendment?

Why was it ratified? I believe it killed the republic and instituted a democracy. I would like your opinions and facts.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

the 16th and 17th are conjoined

You can't have one without the other - or to put it another way - when one goes soon goes the other.

Before the 16th and 17th amendments, the method of taxation was the Federal Government taxed the states. U.S Senators were appointed by the state's legislatures (Art. 1 Sec. 3) and acted in a capacity similar to an ambassador that negotiated the "how much $$$ " between the state and federal government. (ex. Pennsylvania ambassador TO the federal government. The 17th amendment reversed that role - Federal ambassador TO Pennsylvania). This allowed YOU to effect government all the way to the heights of both the state and the Federal government via your district state legislator (state representative)every odd year, and your US congressman every even year. Literally the people could hold 2 people accountable for the whole of government. A true bottom to top system of government.

The 16th took away from the states the responsibility of collecting taxes on foreign and interstate trade , and placed that responsibility on the Federal government. The 16th amendment (ratified 2/3/1913) was needed in order to accomplish the real agenda of the Federal Government politicians -- amend Art. 1 Sec.3 with the 17th Amendment (ratified 4/8/1913). The complete, and total, reversal of power between the states, and federal government, to a "top to bottom" system of government.

The 14th Amendment created

The 14th Amendment created the Democracy by taking away the State's right to determine WHO could and could not vote. The 17th amendment finished this by taking the final voice of the State's away, although all states had already voluntarily given the voters (US Citizens) the right to elect senators before its passage.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, a State's legislature could elect ALL Offices, including Representatives of the House, by their right to say WHO could vote. There would have been nothing unconstitutional about making ONLY State Legislators eligible Electors (voters).

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Not really. The Constitution

Not really. The Constitution also guarantees a Republican form of government in each State, and the States themselves are only governments created by the consent of the governed, being given certain limited powers by individuals.

Article 4, section 4 and the Declaration of Independence.

None of the founders thought that State government triumphed over individual freedom either. All men are created equal, and given certain UNALIENABLE rights - which can't be taken away by a federal government or a state government.

Point of fact, the Declaration of Independence created the State governments as independent entities apart from England.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

One of those UNALIENABLE

One of those UNALIENABLE rights is the right to acquiesce those rights...

Correct, The Constitution DID guarantee a Republican form of Government, BEFORE it was amended. There are now 2 forms of government within these United States. One is a Democracy (US Citizens), the other is a Republic (non-resident Aliens). Your status determines which jurisdiction you are under. (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States)

Jurisdiction has to be given, it is not automatic. They acquire it, you grant it, by acquiescence.

(Acquiescence is a legal term used to describe an act where a person knowingly stands by without raising any objection to the infringement of their rights, while someone else unknowingly and without malice aforethought makes a claim on their rights.

Every time a legal document asks, "Are you a US Citizen?", you check "yes". And you've never bothered to write them and tell them you want to be removed from their jurisdiction. Therefore you are a part of the Democracy, not the Republic. You are a US Citizen, subject to the 5th clause of the 14th Amendment, by acquiescence.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Question, Tx

As you define acquiescence you should have realized that the definition voids it of being the proper term or that the entire idea is false. You say that acquiescence is an act where a person knowingly stands by..., well to knowingly stand by one must know; therefore, if they do not know then they cannot acquiesce, can they?

Yes. Acquiescence is

Yes. Acquiescence is generally, in truth, lack of knowledge in the Law. The people (most people) actually DO NOT know that there is a remedy, and that they can get their true rights back simply by voicing, in the provided legal means of doing so, their objection to jurisdiction. But the rest of the definition...the government does not know and rightfully assumes that you WANT to be under the jurisdiction and so desire the priviledges and immunities of their jurisdiction. They assume this because you've never objected through the legal means they provide for doing so, and you keep putting a check mark in the "yes" box everytime a legal document ask if you ARE a US Citizen, you keep voting in their democratic elections, you PARTICIPATE in everyway within the democracy, and at the same time you've abondoned the Republic. With all this, what else are they to think? How are they to know that you don't want to be a part of the democracy when you participate so fully within it?

So even though MOST do not know (acquiese), THEY view it as if you do know because ALL the information FOR YOU TO KNOW is readily available to you. Your silence "I didn't know"...that you did not know is NOT their fault.

(I provided a link, I did not copy paste it entirely. Had I, you would have also read "The term is most generally, "permission" given by silence or passiveness. Acceptance or agreement by keeping quiet or by not making objections.")

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence


I understand the situation you describe to be true. However, the issue in my mind is the one of fraud by gentle coercion. I'll explain.

Most children are born in hospitals (though more and more are not). Hospitals insist that parents complete the applications for Birth Certificate and Social Security Number before they leave the hospital. These acts are not voluntary on the part of the child.

A family is not a democracy. Children must do what his/her parents tell them. Children believe what they are told by authority figures: Parents, Teachers, Police, Doctors, & etc. There is no choice to make. And yes, while the remedy is readily available, it is difficult to find, particularly if you don't know its there. Though if you do, where do you start? Is it in the US Code? For me that would take several decades to read. Is it in the Congressional Record? I'd have to throw away another couple of decades reading that too. How do I get conformation that I am subject to the UCC with out actually going to court for something? Try reading that on top of everything else!

It's like living for 50 years in the center of a labyrinth and finally being told, or stumbling randomly upon a clue, that there is a way out that is readily available to me. Those that created the labyrinth clearly did not want me to leave or they would not have built the labyrinth in the first place. They just wanted just wanted an excuse to say that they were not forcing us to stay. Bull sh*t!

Since the government controls law and education, and regulates businesses and professions, including doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers & etc., they control the labyrinth. How can this be called anything but fraud? I do understand the argument for "voluntary Servitude" because there is a remedy, but because the choice is withheld and the remedy obfuscated, this is fraud. Fraud is force, plain and simple, regardless of how it is disguised.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Watch Dr. Di Lorenzo explain it...

I highly recommend the entire 10 lecture series, but Dr. DiLo explains the 17th during the first few minutes of this video:

A must view More on the 17th

A must view

More on the 17th that Dilorenzo mentioned - “Beyond the Shell and Husk of History: The History of the Seventeenth Amendment and Its Implications for Current reform Proposals,” by Todd Zywicki : http://mason.gmu.edu/~tzywick2/Cleveland%20State%20Senators.pdf

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

The 17th Amendment is

The 17th Amendment is unconstitutional -even if- it is/was ratified by every state but one. Article Five of The Constitution states that:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution... Provided that... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

So if just Rhode Island held out and didn't support the amendment, it is automatically null and void.

Not only Rhode Island but

Not only Rhode Island but Alabama,Delaware,Florida,Georgia,Kentucky,Maryland,Mississippi,South Carolina,Utah,Virginia.

I cannot name anyone from the "revolution of 1913."Where are the monuments of those people that reformed the government?
A great speech?
Who are these people that put their lives,fortune and sacred honor to give us direct democracy?

No need for answers,the 17th is a supposed answer to a problem caused by the federal government.

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

If one understands etymology

If one understands etymology then one would know that "State" originally meant country/nation; this is why Jefferson usually referred to Virginia as "My Country." The 17 amendment ended the idea that the States were independent countries. It didn't just turn a Republic into a Democracy it ended State Sovereignty. The purpose was for that very reason, because there could have never been a complete totalitarian government controlling every State if the States were sovereign countries, now could they?

Isn't it ironic...

...that in the year 1913 we were handed the 17th Amendment; the Federal Reserve Act was passed, and the Anti-Defamation League was founded?

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

And the IRS


"It does not take a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

--Samuel Adams

The logic of the 17th

The logic of the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators by the public rather then by the state legislature was aimed at making the Senate the equivalent of the House. The Senate would no longer represent the state with regard to state sovereignty, but rather be subject to the "democratic" whims of the populace.

For example, whereas the public could more easily be bribed with federal largess which could compromise state prerogatives, Senators who were elected by the legislature would be more concerned about state powers. This attack on the Checks and Balances on legislation was passed around the same time Americans were being told that we were a "democracy" rather than a republic.

Today, these same forces are behind the effort to demolish the Electoral College. The American people to a large extent have been lead to believe that they elect the president, rather than the states. They see the Electoral College as an anachronistic institution which can frustrate "democracy". There is little understanding that the Electoral College gives a slight advantage to the states with small populations. This prevents presidential candidates from concentrating their efforts on a few states with large populations.

Public education strikes again!

The answer is in your question

The purpose and reason it was ratified was to kill the republic and institute a democracy.

Voters are shallow, for the most part. They think they have a right to choose nominees, for example, and try to usurp the rights of the political parties by holding primaries, when in fact, the parties, which are "assemblies" who can make their own rules about who to nominate, have the right to nominate anyone they want to.

Similarly, they think they have a right to elect Senators, and obviously didn't understand why that was a bad idea. I imagine, bad as state governments are, that most state governments would send Senators who don't have too many enemies, and that they'd know them, personally.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Irrefutable evidence shows clearly Amendments16 & 17 pretend.

Never ratified. Never received consent from each state legislature to change their federal representation.

Amendments 16 & 17 are pretend make-believe.

Lawsuit pending.

In addition to the evidence cited below in comments (e.g.: pchanson, MaxK & Mark Twain), what you write may apply as well.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

The 17th ammendment was enacted because...

the populist movement was sick of their state legislatures sending people they considered dooshbags to the senate.

Essentially senators functioned as ambassadors for much of our country's history, and the majority of the real legislative action took place in the house of reps.

I'm semi-ambivalent about the direct election of senators... But, I do know the current system has incumbency rate of 90+% or something ridiculous, and the country is getting screwed... which in my mind means that some folks ought to be getting fired. If having state legislatures handle the vetting process means we don't end up with a bunch of pussies too afraid to piss off anyone, then I'm all for it... that or some candidates could grow some balls--- maybe a term limit would get them to handle their shit faster.

Schooled!... Please study what our public schools hide.

Major fraud: The 17th Amendment was fraud. It was foist upon our land with vile intent. Those ramming the 16th & 17th Amendments through a convoluted Constitutional Amendment process were primarily beholden to the selfish Money Trust.

The populist movement? Who funded? Remove our Republic? US Senators no longer represent state legislatures? Public opinion of local politicians is quite varied; they somehow keep they official seats of authority by election, reelection, or appointment (such as Ambassadors). The 17th Amendment was foist upon us to circumvent state legislature's choice for whom will best represent state Union membership interests.

Constitutionally, Senators represented their state legislature's interests. They also considered matters before them in the interest of preserving the federal Union. The majority of legislative & all financial appropriations started in the US House of Representatives.

"We the People" should note direct election of senators... foist upon us by fraud should be ignored (some prefer nullified). The 17th Amendment did not nullify nor delete the way our US Senators are to be elected by the represented state legislatures. That vile amendment pretended there was a new & improved way to elect popular Senators (a popularity contest); however, it was not to be. It was merely, "Deemed as passed." Never ratified. This is based on the obvious facts that are documented in prior comments. 16th & 17th Amendments never ratified. Never!:

  • State legislatures were in recess.
  • Debated & passed many different versions. Never reconciled.
  • Passed a completely different amendment & submitted it for consideration at the federal level. Never considered.
  • This all pending before the federal court law in lawsuit. Documented in priour comments.
  • Philander Knox, Secretary of State "Deemed as passed" law that never was.

Ignore or nullify.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Yes, you are correct. I was educated...

and, in my experience public education does not hide anything from those who go to school with the intent of learning.

I apologize if the brevity of my prior post, and my glossing over of the 'history' behind the legislation, gave you the impression I was ill informed on the topic. The truth is I personally find the history behind the 17th amendment to be of far less import than the impact of the amendment.

That being the case, I would like to inquire as to what exactly you perceive the effects of the amendment to be, and what about them you find repugnant. I think it would be beneficial to the forthcoming conversation to have your perceptions of the legislation's impact clearly delineated so that no one is forced to ascribe thoughts to you which are not your own.

I was confused. Now I am defused. "Yes, you are correct" got me.

Brief or verbose, your writing is clear. I have inclination toward historical story telling. Got me on that one too!

Even though your remark "...in my experience public education does not hide anything..." has me catching my breathe. Your phrasing is unassailable. It is your statement based on your experience.

My experience with schooling ended for the most part in grammar school. I have little personal suffering on this point. Concede weight of the evidence.

You raise the point, what affect does the 17th Amendment have? What is repugnant?

"Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!" (1)

  • Legally: None. It was never ratified.
  • Outlaw practice: 1913. Its proponents convinced state legislatures that it was time to tow the Federal line. War lay ahead & we must prevail.
  • Posturing by Philander Knox, Secretary of State prevailed. States commenced electing US Senators by popular vote. This greatly diminished state legislature power, usurped by the US Administrative branch. The states failed to challenge their loss of suffrage... The power to elect their US Senate Representatives legally remains with state legislatures. They just stopped exercising this power. (2)
  • What is repugnant: The US Administrative branch welded outrageous overreach of authority. The states failed in attempts to correct course. This means that there is no proper seating of our US Senate since 1913. No federal laws can be passes. Our Republic is adrift.
  • Simplest solution: States legislatures may simply ignore the 17th Amendment & select their US Senatorial representative is their proper way. Dispatch their US Senator to Washington DC, as their representative. (3)
  • Legally, administratively & militarily (1, 2 & 3) little should have changed.
  • Recommendation: 16th & 17th Amendments... Null & void. Stop pretending.

Thank you for your diligence reading to this point. Please enjoy the colorful quotes from our US Naval history
keeping the peace.
--------------------- Footlocker ----------------------
(1) "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!"
- Admiral David Glasgow Farragut (1801-1870). Aboard the USS Hartford, Farragut entered Mobile Bay, Alabama, 5 August 1864, in two columns, with armored monitors leading and a fleet of wooden ships following. When the lead monitor Tecumseh was demolished by a mine, the wooden ship Brooklyn stopped, and the line drifted in confusion toward Fort Morgan. As disaster seemed imminent, Farragut gave the orders embodied by these famous words. He swung his own ship clear and headed across the mines, which failed to explode. The fleet followed and anchored above the forts, which, now isolated, surrendered one by one. The torpedoes to which Farragut and his contemporaries referred would today be described as tethered mines.
[Hearn, Chester G. Admiral David Glasgow Farragut: The Civil War Years. (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1988): 263-265. According to the book by Admiral Farragut's son, The Life of David Glasgow Farragut, First Admiral of the United States Navy, (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1879), pages 416-417, Admiral Farragut said "Damn the torpedoes! Four bells! Captain Crayton, go ahead! Joucett, full speed!"]

(2) "A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 2 December 1902, second annual message to Congress.

(3) "For in this modern world, the instruments of warfare are not solely for waging war. Far more importantly, they are the means for controlling peace. Naval officers must therefore understand not only how to fight a war, but how to use the tremendous power which they operate to sustain a world of liberty and justice, without unleashing the powerful instruments of destruction and chaos that they have at their command." - Admiral Arleigh Burke, CNO, 1 August 1961, Change of command address at Annapolis, MD [US Naval Historical Center]

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

What I'm trying to understand is...

Why you percieve the direct election of senators to be a bad thing / if you think that were it not for the 17th amendment some states would still be denying their citizens the ability to select their senatorial representation directly.

From my understanding of the issue (forgive me for glossing anything over) a multitude of states had already, of their own volition, gone ahead and given their citizenry the right to directly elect their senators. Given that the prevailing political winds were blowing in that direction I'm relatively certain that regardless of whether or not the 17th amendment was enacted each state would have enacted comparable legislation over the course of the next century.

The reason I hold that belief is that Americans have consistently decided that extending suffrage to new groups of individuals, and over new aspects of government was in their best interests. Hell, one of the primary grievances that led to the founding of our country was the inadequacy of our representation in British political system. The more states which granted their citizenry the right to vote on their senatorial representation the harder it would be for the remaining states to deny it.

Granted, my previous statements are conjecture, however it would be conjecture for you to speculate that sans the amendment some states would have continued to elect senators indirectly and so we are left with the reality that what's done has been done, and we do (for better or for worse) have a system which grants the citizenry of each state to directly elect their senators.

So given that, my main question to you is the following: We have limited resources; whatever you believe about the legality of the enactment of the amendment, why should we devote resources to attempting to right that wrong? Was the outcome of the legislation so onerous that it bears serious resistance? Do you believe that without the amendment the states wouldn't have extended suffrage to their citizenry on their own?

Don't get me wrong I'm a man who champions 'the process,' nothing abhors me more than a 'damn the torpedoes lets ram this though in the middle of the night' approach to legislation, but unless you can convince me somehow that the extension of suffrage in regards to senatorial elections was a catastrophe of biblical proportions I'm going to proffer this up as advice: There are plenty of dragons that need to be slain, we ought to focus on the more odious bits of legislation before we focus on the democratization of the senatorial electoral process.

Each state can just ignore the 16th & 17th amendments.

The Income Tax 16th gave no new taxing authority (Supreme Court multiple times).

The 17th Amendments left intact the Constitutional process to elect state representatives to the US Senate.

The 16th and 17th are conjoined
Submitted by SFTS on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 20:41.

    Generally agree with this newest post from today. Neither amendments where properly ratified. Gross misconduct by the Secretary of State ramming them through before the states came even close to properly debating, voting & forwarding consistent results to Washington DC (notarized documents cited in replies & several state houses were in recess when the Secretary of Sate "Deemed as Passed."

    Other points made are addressing your questions. A corrupt sham rammed through the Woodrow Wilson administration, by "Deemed as passed" & circumventing state authority.

Senators elected by state legislators
Submitted by sreams on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 18:39.

    Brief & strong reasoning to ignore, nullify or remove the 16th & 17th amendments. The US Federal Government wielding authority that they do not properly possess, is a travesty foist upon "We the People" & our states, by overreach of the Federal Union of the states.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Senators elected by state

Senators elected by state legislators and presidents elected by an electoral college are deterrents against tyranny. Constitutionally elected senators give representation to local governments. As soon as the people directly elect every representative at the federal level, their first action is to vote away all of the power of their own local governments and vest it in the central government. This is precisely why we are where we are now, and why we are fighting to defang our behemoth federal government.

Alright, now that is legitimate criticism...

and I do agree with you to a degree, however I still am of the opinion that:
1. Trying to fight this as being invalid due to 100 year old procedural violations is a pipe dream, and
2. It was in the process of happening prior to the amendment's enactment anyway-- the only effect that the amendment had was a hastening of the process. It stands to reason that by this point 99% if not all of the states would have naturally extended suffrage on their own.

These two points render this discussion an interesting intellectual exercise with very little practical application in the near term.

Your reply conveys very low priority to messages sent to you.

Dr Ron Paul stresses many things related to points raised here. He wishes to follow the Constitution. That includes eliminate income tax, Iris, & restore our Republic. All directly & paramount to important. This is not a sidetrack, to rest upon. Constitution is not to be so easily sidetracked.

It will take time. Please choose your own course helping Ron Paul. Restoring the Constitutional Republic is very much involved with eliminating these two bogus amendments.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

I'm not sure how my reply conveys 'low priority'

However OUR portion of the discussion focused on the 17th amendment which I view to be, if not entirely innocuous, a fight not worth getting into. I never said word one about the 16th amendment, which I personally hold to be utter crap as far as amendments go. On the subject of the 16th I wouldn't work to 'repeal' in the short term, rather restore strict interpretation and gut the IRS (as its policies clearly violate the 5th amendment, and that tact would effective void federal tax laws).

The approach you state here is reasonable. A direct path...

to betterment. Your response is clear.

The 16th & 17th directly related to the Fed Reserve Act which followed later the same year, 1913. The folks that foisted this three ring circus act sought to turn our Republic into a mere democracy... To make a mockery of our Republic for which we may yet stand to salute. The 16th (paying the National Debt & transfer payments) & the 17th (disestablishing the direct representation of the state legislatures from the US Senate), were set up under false pretense to aid & abed "creating an elastic currency" ... "and for other purposes."

Read the very first statement of the Federal Reserve Act, 1913. Faith-based, "elastic" legal tender, centralized monopoly-money... "and for other purposes."

      End the Fed,1913...

Federal Reserve Act, 1913 (full text free; related laws & books available).

Here is Dr Ron Paul's brother explaining on film in 1 minute how this Fed act came before Congress during Christmas break, with but 3 wayward Congressmen, to supersede the Congress itself.

Here is a current DailyPaul forum that gives information behind Mr Pau's 1 minute comment.

So, your path may help... Carry on. My path is to have both amendments nullified as invalid. Never ratified. Serving nefarious purposes must end.

    End the Fed: loaning you blind since 1913

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Thank you for your gracious assistance.

Brief & strong reasoning to ignore, nullify or remove the 16th & 17th amendments. I linked your comment moments ago. Also there is another new good reply... The 16th and 17th are conjoined that just arrived.
Submitted by SFTS on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 20:41.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul


William Jennings Bryan became the SOS in March of 1913.