Important - 17th Amendment!

Thomas Jefferson once said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Well, I guess he called that one.

Let's see if we can get the Judge to talk about this on tomorrow's Freedom Watch: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages/18725-freedom-watch-...

And good motivation to start working on electing the right people. This seems like a really good goal and a way to direct our actions. I think with steps in that direction we can bring to light this very issue. However, I also think more people need to realize what is going on. Pushing HR1207 seems like a good step toward this ultimate goal. I think the audit the fed movement would awaken more people to the type of lies our government is purporting and allow for them to be open to bigger ideas such as this. Just my thoughts

This is too important to let go of!

*

The 17th Amendment and Sovereignty: http://mrossarr.nixsyspaus.org/17thamend.shtml

--------------------------------------

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

http://www.meetup.com/The-National-17th-Amendment-Group/

:)

I am so grateful to have my attention redirected to this important topic. I have always been troubled by this, but I never knew this amendment passed in the same year as the Fed and the Income Tax. Thank you so much for posting this and for the links (though I could not get the Devvy Kidd article to come up...)

Thanks again! Yet another weapon in our arsenal!

This would not only achieve so much more than each state passing 10th amendment resolutions, this would ensure that each state's 10th amendment rights were guaranteed!

This is the only guarantee!

What member of any state legislator would pass up on this kind of power?

This is real revolutionary, grass-roots stuff that should be pursued with vigilance.

=======
"The consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of the ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."

- Robert E. Lee, 1866

and I've got to tell you that I am stoked...this may be a silver bullet....

I also think we need to get this new state legislature caucus on board: http://thepatrickhenrycaucus.org/

This guy is one of its founders: http://le.utah.gov/house/members2005/bios2005.asp?id=52

I think the best strategy is to get a legislature to appoint senators and force the legal battle. Congress as it stands today will never agree to repeal the amendment, and plus, if it is illegitimate to begin with it can't even really be 'repealed.'

A Con Con is definitely a bad idea, though, and here's why: http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/pdf/WarrenBurger-let...

AMPLIFYING THE TENTH AMENDMENT
31 Arizona Law Review 915 (1989)
John MacMullin

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,1 the Supreme Court held that state interests are more properly protected from federal encroachment by the procedural safeguards found in the federal political process rather than by judicially defined limitations.2 Justice Powell, in a strong dissent, asserted that the majority's decision reduced the tenth amendment to "meaningless rhetoric."3 In explaining its decision, the majority observed that State governments, through equal representation in the Senate, retain sufficient influence over the federal political process to insure their autonomy and sovereign interests.4 The Court, however, recognized that the seventeenth amendment, which provides for the popular election of Senators, may have diminished the influence that state governments have over the federal political process and, thereby, the effectiveness of the states' role in that process.5 In South Carolina v, Baker,6 the Court reiterated its position in Garcia, and also held that in order to obtain relief, states must show that the federal political process operates in a defective manner.7

Baker provoked a heated response from the Chairman of the National Governors Association.8 This response typified the reactions of others also alarmed that an excessive centralization of authority in the federal government, and a corresponding denigration of the status of the states in the federal system, may be occurring.9

Continue: http://liberty-ca.org/presentations/articles/ampliffying10th...

kw said: "Perhaps we are nearing the time when 'enough' people will demand irrefutable proof from government sources that such is not the case."

The best way to force the government to "prove" its case, is to ignore a law and force them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the law was broken.

In doing so, the defendant would have the constitutional right to question the constitutionality of the law. The burden of proof would be on the prosecution.

It seems to me, the first order of business would be to challenge the ratification in a court of law.
Surely, because of the records available through the Congressional Record, evidence to support the legitimacy of the ratification or the lack of legitimacy is able to be acquired.

If no legitimacy of ratification is found, then all we need is for some states
like Arizona and California to issue a proposition declaring that their respective legislatures shall appoint Senators according to the Constitutional requirement and declaring that the 17th Amendment was never properly ratified.

Any Senator who opposes such action would have to prove their case.

Those states who do not have conservative enough legislatures would have to work more locally to change that.

Any other ideas or improvements out there?

So how do you propose we position this to people to illustrate why this is important?

This is a very deep and involved topic and for some people border line conspiracy. When I mention this topic to people the first response I get is:

"Are you nuts! Think of how much more corrupt or government would be if we let our state legislatures pick!"

While I don't agree with the sentiment, I can see where they are coming from. On the surface it sounds like a worse scenario than having the people elect them. Once I start explaining the issues and discuss checks and balances, as well as Adams, some, not many, start to understand. But I find this such a deep and difficult topic to discuss and many aren't even open-minded enough to listen.

Just tell me when and how. If 1207 doesn't go through who knows what to expect. We need to do something to at least postpone the revolution that should ensue if the private Federal Reserve business continues to charge our country and it's tax payers unnecessary interest, and buy off politicians and presidents.

with 112 cosponsors. Even if it passes the house it will hit a brick wall in the Senate. Remember, Richard Durbin (D-IL) actually said "The Banks Own the Senate". That is why this 17th Amendment Repeal issue is so important. We need to change the most corrupt body in American politics back to what the Founding Fathers envisioned, a body representing the States and protecting them from wild and crazy bills out of the House.

Again, I would encourage us all to think primarily about a process for educating state legislatures, state executives, and common citizens about the 17th Amendment and the benefits that would come from repeal. I believe that we're playing on the fringes when we argue about a) methods for repeal, b) the process by which the 17th was (or wasn't) ratified, or c) whether the present day Senate is valid. Those are interesting theoretical questions, but the answers to those questions do not advance our cause. I suggest that the initial problem to be addressed is this: an extraordinarily small minority of stakeholders have any idea what the 17th Amendment is, and how it impacts the structural integrity of the original constitution. The question that I put to this group is: how best do we educate enough people to achieve critical mass? Without enough stakeholders being educated, we have no movement at all, we have an intellectual exercise.

http://www.restorefederalism.org

However, short of a con-con it will be hard to do since the Senate must agree to it. So we would need to give Senators an incentive to agree. Something like- allowing them to finish their current term and be automatically appointed for the next term. And letting them keep all the campaign cash tax free. This may get enough to go along, especially the older ones who may only care about 1 more term. And maybe throw in a promise not to seceed or enforce the 10th amendment.

It would be nice to challenge the legality of the 17th amendment but that is unlikely to go very far. The courts are rigged, we wouldn’t get the time of day like the Obama birth certificate saga.

a text book case of unintended consequences.

It definitely needs to be repealed and the power for choosing Senators given back to each states legislature.

It worked that way for the first 100+ years of this country's existence . That is until the elites snookered the states into relinquishing their power.

I totally agree...the focus should start at the state and local level. Washington is just too far away...not only in miles, but in the thinking of those who were elected to represent us.