12 votes

A Magic Bullet Will be Needed to Kill the 17th Amendment

Hi All,
I thought we could all use a break from the pressure of the upcoming Caucus and the poll nonsense. So I have decided to re-post this article I presented here in May of 2009.

Ron Paul doesn't particularly care for the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) and publicly said so on a campaign stop in New Hampshire during his run 4 years ago, so this issue is germane to issues concerning Ron Paul. As a result of my post 2 years ago, I was interviewed by an on-line radio program concerning this issue so it is probably a worthwhile read, even though it is a bit lengthy. Please feel free to post this far and wide. I only ask that you keep the original title, the article itself and the author (me) intact. Here is the article (this one's for you Samuel Howell Jr):

A Magic Bullet Will Be Needed to Kill the 17th Amendment.

An article by Paul Hanson

The U.S Constitution "originally" laid out the separation of powers
between the federal government and the State governments in the first paragraph of article 1 section 3. How this paragraph accomplished that goal will become clear later in this article. This paragraph states:

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

Then in Article I, section 4 we also find this:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the PLACES of chusing Senators." Those places were to be in the State Legislatures.

This balance of power was then permanently locked in by the last
clause of article 5. I call this clause the magic bullet because
it can't be stopped by any means that I can see. Article 5 dealing
with amendments to the Constitution clearly states:

"... and that NO State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its
equal Suffrage in the Senate."

By including this in the section dealing with amendments, it is
obvious that the sections of the Constitution concerning selection
of Senators and the suffrage they provided was not amendable unless ALL of States consented and that this was to be a permanent provision. All of the above shows how adamant the founders were about this point by referring to the States representation on no less than 3 occasions. If even ONE State objected to changes in an area that would affect their suffrage, that change would be invalid. The normal ratification process could not be used to alter this principle. Yet that is exactly what happened when the 17th amendment was adopted.

The father of our Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 43,
further supports this claim. He states that the Constitution was
completely amendable with two exceptions only. One of the exceptions dealt with the importation of slaves and became moot after 1808. The other was the State's equal suffrage in the Senate.

It appears, then, that this all boils down to definition. What is the definition of State suffrage? In Federalist 59, Hamilton explains
State suffrage as the State legislatures having a voice in the
Senate. The 17th amendment effectively canceled that voice and
turned it over to the citizens of the States. I submit to you that
now, however, this definition has been left entirely to the discretion of the States themselves. The courts have no say in the matter. I will explain this bold statement in detail later. Why do I feel this issue vitally important to restoring States rights? For the same reasons our Founders did, to support the concept of federalism and the balance of power between the States and federal government.

This concept strictly limited the federal governments powers to those specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution. The People, through the Constitution, permitted the
national government to exercise certain enumerated powers. By
limiting the federal government's power and granting the States
nearly unlimited power, the federal government would merely be
protecting the States collectively and allowing the States to
handle their own affairs.

Federalism allowed the States wide latitude to run their own affairs
and by doing so, created 13 laboratories of freedom to experiment and formulate the best system of self-governance. This situation also created an atmosphere of competition between the States. When a State allowed its inhabitants to prosper and keep what they earn, The State would prosper and be allowed to continue governing its people. When the State government became a burden to them, the people could vote out the tyrants during the next election. Another alternative was for the businesses and the people to move to a State that was more to their liking. Business leaving the State would cause the tax base to erode and so would the peoples support of that government. Sooner or later, either the State government or the people would wake up and correct the problem.

The 17th amendment took away the States protection from the abuses of federal power allowing the federal government to get away with legislating in areas where they had no business doing so. This was a grave error seriously upsetting the balance of power so carefully crafted into our magnificent Constitution. The concept of Federalism was all but destroyed leading to endless abuses by the federal government from which there is no escape.

The enforcement mechanism against federal encroachment and the 10th amendment prior to the invalid 17th was the States' representation in the Senate. The "Peoples House" i.e. the House of Representatives amply represents the people, while the States were to be represented by the Senate.

The States now have no representation and we are experiencing the folly of this venture toward pure democracy today. We were founded as a Republic not a democracy and now we see why. All the States needed to do in the past was to recall or direct their Senators before a bad law made it to the floor of the Senate for a vote and the damage could be stopped in its tracks. Hamilton's Federalist essay 59 addresses this issue directly. This power has been unconstitutionally snatched from the States by the invalid 17th amendment.

Careful study of the 17th amendments ratification reveals at least 10 states or more that failed to do so. These were 10 that failed to "consent" FL, MS, DE, KY, UT, MD, RI, AL, IA and GA. The clear manner in which article 5 is written places the statement dealing with States equal suffrage in the Senate after the words: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made..." further showing that this was an exception to the rule regarding amendments.

With the failure those of 10 states to ratify the 17th, they were
denied their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent in
violation of Article 5, thus making the 17th amendment invalid.
However, once any state declares the 17th invalid, based on what
I have pointed out here, that State, even though it had previously
consented to the 17th can withdraw its consent anytime it so chooses. Any State that previously consented can say "we no longer consent" because Article 5 mentions nary a word about the permanence of any such consent. The right of the state to withdraw that consent is further fully supported by the clear wording of the 10th amendment:


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to withdraw that consent is not prohibited by article 5
so the power to withdraw it is reserved and retained by the States. Fits like a glove. All the states need to do is select their Senators in their legislatures and send them to Washington. Simple. And what would the courts say about move such as this? No court can attempt to make the State comply with the 17th because they won't have jurisdiction to try the case. Here's why:

When a sovereign State declares the 17th amendment invalid through an article 5 challenge, the Senate would be unlawfully seated. It would then follow that the Supreme Court is also unlawfully seated as is the entire federal bench because the Senate approves those federal court appointments including the Supreme Court. Anything decided by those federal courts would be
null and void. The State could simply refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the court system. The States could argue that the federal judiciary has been confirmed by a Senate that did not have the states best interest at heart. These judges would also have a conflict of interest for which there is no resolution. They would be more reluctant to decide in favor of an article V challenge due to the fact they would be "deciding" themselves off the bench and out of a job.

The only other argument that could be made against the State would be the power of the Senate to be the ultimate judge of their elections and refuse to seat the Senators. However, how can an illegitimate Senate make such a decision? The answer is, they can't.

I have presented these facts in many forums over the years and they have never been successfully challenged. One argument that always seems to arise is this: "Well, all the states do have equal suffrage because they still each have two senators." This invalid argument comes from a lack of full understanding of what "suffrage" really stands for and by a focus on the first term "equal" while ignoring the second, "suffrage." The point of my entire article is that the States (meaning the State Legislatures) are the ones who have lost suffrage. The people of the State now elect Senators and are in possession of that suffrage. The real point is who do these senators now represent? After I make this point, I usually get this: "Well, the people ARE the "State." This is not entirely accurate either. In all instances I can find in the Constitution where it is speaking about the States, it is speaking of the Legislature of the States. The best example I can find that clearly delineates between the two is the last clause of that wonderful 10th Amendment again. That clause clearly lists the "People" and the "States" as two separate entities. If they were the same thing, there would be no need to list them both in the very same sentence.

There are other far-reaching implications of an invalid 17th and I'm
sure that opponents of what's been written here will use them to fight these truths. I will not give them ammunition by detailing what those far reaching implications are. However, I will say this: If we endeavor to rid ourselves of the invalid 17th amendment in the manner outlined above, be prepared for the fight of your lives because there are many entrenched interests that would like nothing more than to never have this information reach the light of day.

There have been many articles written concerning the "repeal" of the 17th amendment. While many of these articles correctly point out the folly of the 17th, they fail to realize that a movement to repeal is nothing more than a pipe dream. The only way to remove the 17th amendment is through outright repudiation using the method I have described above. My next paragraph explains why.

There are 2 methods laid out in Article 5 for amending the
Constitution. One of those methods is through a Convention of the
States. I will not go into details as to why this method should never be used under any circumstances other than to say that if you truly value your freedoms, this method should be avoided at all costs. The other method would be an exercise in futility. To use the method that nearly all the other amendments have used since the 10th would entail having to first convince 67 senators to vote themselves out of a job. Then 290 House members would have to vote for the repeal of an amendment which will make all the laws they want to pass much more difficult to push through the Senate. A senate which as a result of its passage would now be jealously guarding the rights of the States that the House laws frequently trample. If that isn't enough, you need to get 38 state legislatures to vote for repealing an amendment over the objections of the people who would feel like their right to vote was being stolen (a right which never really existed due to an invalid 17th). To educate the masses in 38 separate states that the 17th amendment was a mistake is an insurmountable task. To do it for just one, as would be the case in a move to repudiate it, Maybe. In a repudiation argument, it could be demonstrated to the people that the right to vote for their Senators should have never been theirs in the first place due to the fraudulent manner in which the 17th was adopted.

My first target for a move to repudiate would be done in a State
that swings to the right most of the time and where the voters are well informed and leery of the feds. Utah would be my choice since
Utah rejected the 17th outright and they have been stung recently by federal land grabs. Please join me in this endeavor to repudiate the 17th and get the concept of federalism firmly back on track.

We must educate ourselves and our posterity in the wonderful documents that founded our great Republic if we are ever to set it back on course toward freedom and prosperity. That is why I'm writing this today. My positions on the 17th amendment are supported by the Constitution of the United States including the 10th amendment and "The Federalist Papers", specifically Madison 43 and Hamilton 59.

Thanks for your attention,


Paul C. Hanson

Here is a link to where the article permanently resides:


And here is a link to a supreme court case that actually, as part of the majority opinion, stated that there were 2 exceptions to amending the Constitution and the election of senators was one of them. The case is Dillon V. Gloss. Although the case isn't directly on point, the court did state there were exceptions to the amendment process. Link:


Scroll down to sections [Page 256 U.S. 368, 373] and [Page 256 U.S. 368, 374].

Here is the pertinent wording:

"An examination of article 5 discloses that it is intended to invest Congress with a wide range of power in proposing amendments. Passing a provision long since expired,8 it subjects this power to only two restrictions: one that the proposal shall have the approval of two-thirds of both houses, and the other excluding any amendment which will deprive any state, without

[Page 256 U.S. 368, 374]

its consent, of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The words "Passing a provision that has long since expired" (and spoken of in footnote 8) refers to sections of the constitution that dealt with the importation of slaves and direct taxes, and since it only held true until 1808, it had "long since expired" But, in the decision itself, it did not apply that year to the restriction on suffrage in the Senate. To the contrary, it said that restriction was still in force.

Again, Thanks for your time and attention


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Watch Sunday 1/08/12 CSpan

... "I would like to get ride of the 17th amendment" Ron Paul

Please enjoy, "RON PAUL And All That Jazz"
Central Pa, Lycoming County, Williamsport


I know this posting is old, but this subject was brought up recently on another thread so I thought some of you might like to see a solution to the 17th amendment problem.


There's a lot of collective disgust with NDAA right now

How does this relate to the 17th amendment ?

Repealing the 17th could give us a way to recall all the senators who voted for the NDAA. Why not tap into this collective disgust for NDAA, by renewing interest into repealing the 17th Amendment.

Oath Keepers are trying to create a nation wide effort to recall those who voted for the NDAA.


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

The NDAA is no law at all.

If the senate is fraudulently seated, then anything touched by that fraud is fruit of the poisonous tree and is therefore null and void. Just need one state to stand up and sy "we never consented." That will de-legitimize the 17th and all actions taken under it. So rather than recall a bunch of senators, requiring the votes of millions of people, why not just convince 80 or so state legislators in Utah to say "we never consented" and yur NDAA problem will be solved on that very same day.

I'm here to tell y'all that this thing not only rocks, but can solve many of our ills and absolutely CANNOT be stopped.

Join me in this epic battle.. You'll be on the winning team because the other side doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.


This is one of my favorite subjects

The fact that Senators have 4.35X more clout than Representatives makes them prime candidates for lobbyist's money. They are now just "super Representatives". That is why I call the Senate America's Corruption Central. It is as important as the other two legs of the triumverate that sealed the doom of America in 1913.

I share much of your sentiment. Thx.

Carry on.

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

lemme guess

The 16th amendment and the federal reserve would be the other 2? Just a wild guess... : )

Also, for anyone but the state to have influence over a senator once the 17th is trashed, they would have to bribe 51% of both houses of the state legislature and somehow the senator would have to know about it and be in on it. Too many leaks.



1913, the year America got cancer. Perhaps Dr. Paul can start the cure 100 years later in 2013? America can still be saved.

"Look at what a fine [guess] you have gotten us into." - Oliver

"I'm sorry, Ollie." - Stan Laurel

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

Quite interesting ... one suggestion, though:

I'm no grammar-Nazi and it's obvious you're a knowledgeable, intelligent person, I just suggest one last proof-read before you spread it too far and wide, because I noticed a couple missing apostrophes and the occasional spot that requires a comma. Otherwise, it's very well-written and an easy read so I have no doubt that these were just overlooked.

I'm only saying this because I hope this is read by many and when you're trying to convince, say, a liberal (typically the type that opposes most "state's rights" issues and typically support a more "pure democracy" approach to government) it's important to be as grammatically sound as you are factually--let's face it, there are countless pseudo-intellectuals out there that aren't above using minor grammatical and/or spelling errors as part (or even much) of their argument against you and the not-so-bright among them who hold them in high-esteem are often willing to declare victory for their team in such cases.

This is definitely, sincerely, constructive criticism and it's only a few minor mistakes, but if someone as grammatically challenged as I am noticed them then someone sharp enough to present a strong argument against it will notice it and may try to imply that the mistakes show a certain degree of illiteracy and convince the people in his/her community to question the legitimacy of the entire post.

With that said, it's very interesting and--for me--quite enlightening. I wasn't aware of much of that. I agree with the importance of the subject completely.

Great read ... thanks for the lesson.


Work for pay, pay for freedom
Fuck 'em all, we don't need 'em

I've read it a buncha times.


Maybe you could point them out. I thought I was OK with commas but if you see something glaring, let me know because if I haven't spotted it yet, I never will. I'm just so familiar with it that I just really breeze through it to find the factoid I'm looking for. I won't take it the wrong way, especially over punctuation.

And I agree, liberals, especially when cornered by facts will shoot the messenger every time. Trying to win an argument with criticism of spelling and punctuation is, to quote a rant I made in on DP just 2 days ago on the spelling/punctuation issue, "the last refuge of a scoundrel." That is not the case here since we aren't debating and your advice was offered as a way to make sure that if it does go viral, I won't look stupid. So please feel free to just paste in a few words around the area in question with the corrected punctuation and I will find where they go and correct both the one here and the original on my myspace page.

With just a quick read of the first couple of paragraphs, I already found one missing comma and 1 maybe 2 extra ones. But I'd like confirmation.



"No one can write perfect English..." - Mark Twain

"No one can write perfect English and keep it up through a stretch of ten chapters. It has never been done."
- "Christian Science" by Mark Twain

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

Unless we also capped house districts at 50k persons, AND

expanded the Senate to grow with the number of States in the Union (meaning as more states join, each state gets more Senators)

Then we are right back where we were in 1913 when they passed this, and we would not have resolved the underlying motivation to pass it. (in the public mind that is)

Yes, but isn't the process...

just as corrupt now if not more so than in 1913? Only millionaires are able to compete in elections, and in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars spent on campaigns. All of which have to be paid back with political favors if said Senator wants their support next time around. The reason the Senators are not apportioned or held in perpetuity to just 2 is to balance the power of the states so that one state or a group of several can't dominate the Senate. 2 per. If it were not for that provision (part of the great compromise that saved the convention) our Constitution would never have been adopted.

I do agree with you on the House issue though. Far to few representing far too many.

But that is a subject for a different thread, which I'd be happy to join if you start one.


I think you misunderstand my idea for the Senate.

I understand full well the present balance and why it was created. However, a reform WAS necessary by 1913, just not the one we adopted.

For example, when the Constitution was ratified, there were 13 States and 2 Senators each.

If we were to continue that trend, then for every 13 States added to the union, each State would get 2 more Senators.

It isn't apportioned by population. It's altered based on the number of States. I know it is quite different from what we are used to, but the goal is to make the Senate less exclusive. This was THE major factor which the people were trying to remedy. Their solution (it wasn't really theirs of course) was flawed. Electing Senators doesn't make them less exclusive, it merely gives someone wanting to buy a Senator, a way to do it easily.

So if we were to adopt my plan, presently, with 50 States, each State would have 7 Senators. If we ever add two more, then each State would get 8. (52 ÷ 13 x 2, we can have an odd number by rounding up at 7 States each level, rather than waiting till 13 more are added)

Thus, the Senate would presently consist of 7*50 or 350 Senators. If we were to add two more States, then it would jump to 8*52 or 416 Senators.

If we adopted the 50k limit for House districts, the House would be comprised of about 6,000 Representatives.

The two reforms kind of go hand in hand. (along with repeal of the 17th)

What is most important here, is that Congressional Districts don't get too large. Not only does this make Representatives more accountable to less people, but elections are winnable by going door to door and not spending a dime. (or very little) Thus, it is so easy to get elected, it is that much easier to "throw a bum out." Since campaigns are now so localized, big money is irrelevant to winning them.

Finally, the real problem with both Houses with respect to "being bought" has more to do with government doing things it has no authority to do, than anything else. It is precisely BECAUSE government intervenes in the economy that lobbyist have a reason to buy their way in. If government stayed out, there would be no prize for them to vie for.

Thus, we'd need a way to "enforce" the oath of office among other things.

That's a much taller order.

Fortunately, this is where the dual factors of a larger House (and equally importantly, larger Senate) combine with smaller districts and change of constituency (the Senate would be appointed by the State Legislatures once again) to counter any shift towards government control to business or the economy and actually precipitate a reform of any current interventions.

Essentially, these combined factors - the size of the chambers AND who they are accountable to in a more direct fashion will make "buying" results prohibitively expensive, and near impossible logistically.

I see what you mean now about the Senate.

First things first though. First get the senate back under control of the states. Half plus 1 of both houses of a single state legislature can do that with a single majority vote. That will also fix the government doing things it ought not which you wrote about so eloquently.

After that, we can talk numbers. I would like to just toss this out though. The senate was designed as a very deliberative body placed there to temper the passions of the House. That being the case, with anymore than 2 senators and each one wanting a whack at deliberation, they may never get anything done. That may be a good thing, but it may be too much of a good thing as well. Just a thought. As long as the numbers are equal, I don't see how your idea would violate article 5 last clause, so on those grounds what you purpose is legal, but would require a separate constitutional amendment.


Both the 16h & 17th Constitutional Amendments "Deemed as Passed"

Nonsense. These are laws that never were.

William Jennings Bryan declared the Seventeenth Amendment [Direct Senate Election supposedly] ratified at 11:00 am, May 31, 1913, by proclamation. He had no right to declare such nonsense. Many of the states were not even in session when passage supposedly took place. Examination & notarizing copies of original state archival evidence from all 48 states show unequivocally that this law never was.

Similarly, Philander Knox, Secretary of State "Deemed to Pass" the 1913 16th Income Tax supposed amendment.
The Law That Never Was.

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

That may all be true, and I think it is...

And I agree with you. However, please see my post below for a response to the documentation route for repudiation.



Seems to me there are many ways to skin a rapscallion.

As the schemes to enslave take many forms, it seems the solutions & resolutions may take many tacks. As a Yankee clipper cuts through waves (of liquidity) tacking to take best advantage of her rigging, we too may approach headwinds.

I like what you wrote & have hope that any approach to rid us of these dastardly amendments from 1913 will help us reduce & eventually eliminate authority pretended by the Fed & their ilk. Thank you.

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

I agree, If the order is the state legislature first.

Well, actually it doesn't matter I guess. If your method is presented to the courts showing a lack of documentation for the 3/4ths of the states having not ratified, any decision one way or the other shouldn't affect an article 5 last clause repudiation move, so have at it. Just don't argue for article 5 repudiation if the court doesn't accept your documentation argument. The article 5 challenge must never see the inside of a courtroom. Once you allow that to happen, you legitimize the court as standing when it is really nothing more than a legal fiction.


Very clear.

Verily I go along my ways. I choose many paths... Many adventures. Life finds me that way... And that way.... And...

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

Thanks for the info


"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."


It took quite awhile to get it just right and make it bullet proof. The original letter I wrote from which the article was based only took a day or 2 but I've had years to refine the actual article itself. I've even added rebuttals to the 2 biggest arguments I usually get when I present the info. Helps prevent me from having to waste a lot of keystrokes defending it.


Very detailed article.

Thank you

The law that never was. 16th & 17th Amendments never ratified.

They are legal fictions.

Do you really believe that the several united states voluntarily submitted their approval to allow the Feds to tax income & elect state Senators?

Let us consider a more direct, quicker approach. Ignore the 16th & 17 amendments. The Feds cannot prove the amendments were ever ratified. Examination of the original submissions from the states in response to the attempted amending of the US constitution utterly failed. Never ratified.

Pending lawsuit based on notarized copies of original archival evidence uncovered massive fraud in that the states did not ratify these bogus amendments. Many states were out of session when the Feds officially claimed pasage. Many states debated & voted on different versions. Some did much of nothing. The US Secretary of State merely, "Deemed as passed" what never was: "The Law that Never Was" website includes Income Tax, 16th and Direct Senate Election, 17th Amendment Ratification Attempt Research. This link covers the evidence presented in court refuting the Fed's claim that these amendments ever completed ratification. States may simply ignore these amendments. They are not restricted by these proposed amendments. The states are free to continue to follow the US Constitution as these these amendments never completed ratification. They never overcame the issues you raise either.

In summary, I am not arguing. No need. These proposed amendments never ratified. Addressed in several DailyPaul forums. To wit: What was the logic behind the 17 Amendment? Submitted by Jim Brown @ DailyPaul. Many replies by Mark Twain & others.

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

My method requires no such "notarized" documents

And it bypasses having to present it to any court because they (the courts) don't legally exist. The only places you can present those notarized documents are to the US Senate who does have the power to judge its elections (ha! good luck there getting them to vote themselves out of a job!) or to the federal courts. The The 17th was fraudulent on it's face as adopted, by no matter how many states. My method is simpler, quicker and can't be stopped.

I know all about "the law that never was" (since I've been in the freedom fight for 20 years its a given). But having to lay all the documentation out in a lawsuit? Really? Is that the route you want to take? Just because you found a pet book you like that impressed you? You gonna trust probably the only opportunity to cast off this nasty amendment to a pack of federal judges who would be deciding themselves out of a job if they decide in our favor? Screw that. Talk about a conflict of interest. I'll place my bet with 51% of both houses of the Utah legislatures thank you very much...

The 16th is another matter. That will have to be dealt with through the courts. The 17th however is fraudulent on its face and is prohibited by the very document which would allow any amendment to be adopted, any amendment other than the 17th that is. Please follow my link to dillon v gloss in my original post. Or just re-read that section where I quote the majority opinion to see if the selection of senators is restricted from modification in that courts opinion, The Supreme Court of the United States of America that is.


You are correct in what you present.

I am not so much arguing... as I am stating the evidence the amendments never were ratified is compelling. The courts are refusing to allow it to be presented in their various courts. Delay upon delay. Decades.

I read & commend your work. Thank you.

The simplest course through this 17th Amendment mess is for each state to choose their course to ignore and/or challenge the supposed amendment. Each state may take their own course righting this wrong against their sovereignty. They may still follow the Constitution. Their is no rightful law against it.

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

A concon will have to be used

A concon will have to be used at some point when it's time to liquidate the national debt and incorporate and globalize the US government.

You don't really think Congress is going to turn their power over to a board of directors willingly do you?

Fix the senate.

Fix the senate as I've outlined above and all the laws creating all that spending your worried about and all the federal departments that require that spending will be wiped back to about 1917. They were all passed through fraud. That should solve yur spending issue.

We don't need to be sacrificing all our freedoms on the altar of david rockefellers "constitution for the new states of america" (or some such silly title as that) which has already been written and just waiting for the correct number of shortsighted people to call for a con-con. At that con-con (which will be filled with globaloney butt-clowns) they will adopt the worst possible constitutiobn ever. They will even change the ratification process to have it ratified by 20 drunken monkeys sitting around a bar in Boston watching a Red Sox game. Don't believe me? Go ahead and push for a con-con and see what happens. Give me about 2 years notice so I can move my family to a Caribbean island NOT under US jurisdiction first OK??

For more on why a con-con should never be initiated, please see my arguments at the following website. Feel free to comment there if you think the evidence I provide there isn't convincing enough. This thread is about the 17th so I don't want to turn it into a debate about a con-con. The debate starts about 15 messages after my article with a post from Dwayne S. Happy reading.


Thanks for your time and attention,


Paul C. Hanson