Comment: Apparently you've never read my article on this subject.

(See in situ)


Apparently you've never read my article on this subject.

The original poster is correct with only one caveat. Only 1 state is needed to get the ball rolling. His post was lacking in enough detail to point you to the exact the clause he was referring to. It is the last clause of article 5 which reads: "and that NO state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." This clause appears after the words "provided that no amendment which may be made" meaning this particular change (a change in the states suffrage) could not be forced upon ANY state by a majority or even a supermajority of the others. Article 5 deals with the methods for amending the constitution and there were 2 exceptions to amendments that could be made. These exceptions were confirmed by Madison in federalist #43 and by a US supreme court decision Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921):
http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/dillon-v-gloss-20019903

The pertinent part reads: " 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, 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
its consent, of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

This part of the decision can be found starting in [Page 256 U.S. 368, 373] and continuing into [Page 256 U.S. 368, 374]. Although this case concerned a challenge to the prohibition amendment and isn't exactly on point, the above argument was used in that decision and reflects the thoughts of the best legal minds in the country at that time. It is also the ONLY comment on article 5 last clause that I'm aware of in ANY Supreme Court decision. So, the only time its commented on, the comment the court made fully supports the original poster and the entire premise of my article on the subject. Here is a link to that article:

http://www.dailypaul.com/93476/ron-paul-doesnt-like-the-17th...

The article also appears here (with comments from Dwayne Stovall and many others below the article):

https://www.facebook.com/notes/thomas-mick/a-magic-bullet-wi...

There were at least 10 states (and possibly 11, not just 8 as the original poster stated) that never ratified the 17th. Therefore they were deprived of their equal suffrage without their consent, thus making the 17th amendment invalid on its face. The 10 states were: FL, MS, DE, KY, UT, MD, RI, AL, IA and GA.

Read the article carefully please. I've been refining it since 1994.

Sincerely,

Paul C. Hanson