Judge Napolitano: the 17th Amendment is Unconstiutional

[tpreitzel]

The point is that if institutional slavery exists even to today, what would make you sure that the States chose to end slavery without the 13th amendment?

Simple, the US wasn't some 3rd world country by 1860. IIRC, there were only 11 Confederate slave states remaining during the Civil War as most of the country was slave-free. There were still some Union slave-states. In the US, the trend was anti-slavery since the Revolutionary War, not pro-slavery so it's just a logical assumption that the remaining states of the SE US would eventually become slave-free without federal intervention.

 

[FrankRep]

Back to the point.

Judge Napolitano is correct. The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.

 

[cindy25]

without the 17th amendment Trey Grayson would be the next senator from Kentucky, Robert Bennett and Arlen Spector and Lisa Murkowski would be returning, and Charlie Crist would be senator elect from Florida.

 

[jclay2]

without the 17th amendment Trey Grayson would be the next senator from Kentucky, Robert Bennett and Arlen Spector and Lisa Murkowski would be returning, and Charlie Crist would be senator elect from Florida.

You have to look at what has been lost due to the popular election of senators to realize that the scenarios you mention would be a token loss compared to the destruction on states rights.

 

[Imperial]

Do you guys really think if an amendment were passed that legalized dictatorial power to the President that it would be Constitutional?

Get real. When something is deemed "unconstitutional," it is against the Founders' original intent. The belief of "anything in the Constitution is okay and Constitutional" is a living Constitution argument.

Was it not the founders' intent to add an amendment for the purposes of changing the Constitution if deemed necessary?

Your problem is with the Constitution itself in this instance rather than the founders.

 

[AxisMundi]

Yup. And the Founders all thought democracy was a great idea!!!

If they thought democracy was "a great idea", they wouldn't have created a Constitutional Republic.

 

[AxisMundi]

:sigh:

Do you people NOT get it that the 16th and 17th Amendments were NOT properly ratified? That MAKES them unConstitutional! The Amendment process is SPECIFIC and if its not followed EXACTLY then the proposed Amendment has not in fact been added to the Constitution.

Considering that the 16th and 14th were ratified by Constitutional Principles and Process, why don;t you go ahead and tell us, in your own words, why you feel they were not "properly ratified".

 

[AxisMundi]

Simple, the US wasn't some 3rd world country by 1860. IIRC, there were only 11 Confederate slave states remaining during the Civil War as most of the country was slave-free. There were still some Union slave-states. In the US, the trend was anti-slavery since the Revolutionary War, not pro-slavery so it's just a logical assumption that the remaining states of the SE US would eventually become slave-free without federal intervention.

If one examines the 1860 tax rolls of NYC, one will find almost ten thousand slaves listed, men who worked the NYC harbor docks loading and unloading ships.

This is despite NY abolishing slavery in 1827.

Northern agriculture was simply unsuited to an enslaved labor force that would be idle during the winter months, thus we see them in industry and other year round labor such as dock work.

When the Confederacy was formed, it banned the importation of slaves into the Confederacy, leaving Rhode Island the largest port of entry for slaves onto this continent.

And the only reason the 13th was able to be ratified in the first palce was that Southern states were permitted to keep their civilian governments IF they voted for the Amendment, or the vote was cast by the military governor of the occupied State outright. The Amendment didn;t ahve the support neccessary otherwise.

The 13th is much more an example of an "unconstitutional amendment" than the 16th or 17th could hope to be, an amendment put in place in an attempt to justify an unjust civil war that cost more than half a million lives.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Considering that the 16th and 14th were ratified by Constitutional Principles and Process, why don;t you go ahead and tell us, in your own words, why you feel they were not "properly ratified".

There is research enough showing that the 16th and 17th were 'declared' to be ratified when in fact they weren't.

 

[AxisMundi]

There is research enough showing that the 16th and 17th were 'declared' to be ratified when in fact they weren't.

Please feel free to share some of that research. Thanks in advance.

 

[FrankRep]

There is research enough showing that the 16th and 17th were 'declared' to be ratified when in fact they weren't.

It doesn't matter! You can whine and complain all day about it being "not properly ratified" and it won't change things.

The point is: We need to repeal it now.

 

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

Considering that the 16th and 14th were ratified by Constitutional Principles and Process, why don;t you go ahead and tell us, in your own words, why you feel they were not "properly ratified".

I won't comment on the 16th one way or another, but I will say that you're way off in regard to the 14th. The "ratification" of the 14th was extremely fraudulent. In fact, it was "passed" under military coercion. See some of the materials at http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14ll.htm for more information.

 

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

without the 17th amendment Trey Grayson would be the next senator from Kentucky, Robert Bennett and Arlen Spector and Lisa Murkowski would be returning, and Charlie Crist would be senator elect from Florida.

Your statement is counterfactual and cannot be proven. However, even if we assume it to be true, if the amendment is unconstitutional then it doesn't matter what good ends come from it.

 

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

Please feel free to share some of that research. Thanks in advance.

While I am again not commenting on the 16th, in post #57 I discussed some of the issues with the 17th. In that post I also provided a link to an article which discusses some of the discrepancies with the 17th's ratification process. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2966055&postcount=57

 

[nbruno322]

YouTube - Judge Napolitano: Repeal the "Progressive" 17th Amendment For Better Local Representation

 

[Ninja Homer]

Napolitano (and RPgrassrootsactivist) are correct... the 17th is unconstitutional. Original intent aside, it was never properly ratified, and in fact it would be impossible to ratify it unless there was first an amendment that altered Article V.

Article V, read the bold:
"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."

 

[AxisMundi]

I won't comment on the 16th one way or another, but I will say that you're way off in regard to the 14th. The "ratification" of the 14th was extremely fraudulent. In fact, it was "passed" under military coercion. See some of the materials at http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14ll.htm for more information.

17th, not 14th. A typo, of course.

And you will note the comments I already made on the 13th, which mirrors the info on the 14th rthat you linked to.

 

[AxisMundi]

While I am again not commenting on the 16th, in post #57 I discussed some of the issues with the 17th. In that post I also provided a link to an article which discusses some of the discrepancies with the 17th's ratification process. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2966055&postcount=57

I see nothing in your link suggesting anything even remotely fishy about the17th or it's ratification process.

The 17th moved the choice of Senators from the back room and underhanded dealing and politics that had crept into the process and placed the appointment of our State Representatives to Congress in the hands of We the People.

Senators remain representatives of the State at the will of the population of that State.

 

[Southron]

Senators remain representatives of the State at the will of the population of that State.

Except the state governments themselves have no representation in Washington.

In fact, our Senators can continue to centralize power in D.C. and demolish any legitimate constitutional authority the states have, with very little recourse on the federal level.

 

[AxisMundi]

Napolitano (and RPgrassrootsactivist) are correct... the 17th is unconstitutional. Original intent aside, it was never properly ratified, and in fact it would be impossible to ratify it unless there was first an amendment that altered Article V.

Article V, read the bold:
"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."

We the People hire, through the democratic process, our State Legislature, our Elected Employees.

Since the 17th, We teh People also hire our State's congressional representative.

The only thing the 17th changed was to move the selection of our State's Congressional Representative out of the realms of backroom political dealing and bought seats, and placed We the People in charge.

State's Rights are preserved in the preservation of something even more important, We the People, who can now choose to hire a Senator, or remove them from office during the election process.