No coincidence was passed same years as income tax and the central bank. All 3 ended the Republic as we knew it.
17th made it much easier for special interests including foreign to buy off favorable policy from 60 senators instead of having to go state to state which is more costly. And Senate approved judges and executive appointments and ratifies treaties.
Effects of 17th in concert with 16th and central bank have been devastating.
Think of alt history, we prob would have been colonizing mars already
NO law made in conflict with the Constitution and Bill of Rights is legal. Any law made in conflict is Void and unenforceable. This only proves that Criminals have been in Congress for years, some of them are Still there.
This is correct. The same premise applies to Constitutional Amendments. An Amendment cannot go against the original intent of the Constitution, it can only add to it in a manner consistent with the original intent at the time the Constitution was written and adopted.
There are a few paths for us to right these wrongs. One is Nullification:
Yale Law Journal Quote “The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge’s instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: “It is not only ... [the juror’s] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted.” ~ Yale Law Journal Note: The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 174 (1964).
"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." - Quote by: Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Source: Federalist Papers #78, See also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762, Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178)
Somewhat ironically this isn’t Historically an unexpected development for Republics. With a move being done to ostensibly empower the people. Actually having the opposite effect.
Normally it coincides with the Republics gradual slide either into outright collapse, Ala the birth of the Roman Empire, or just a gradual decline until the entire region the Republic encompasses is essentially Detroit. A shell of forgotten Dreams and Wealth. With decay and Corruption ruling the day. Maybe plastered over with a veneer of what once was. To delude the local wealthy and Elite into believing they hadn’t run their country into the ground
Such as the closing years of the Venetian Merchant Republic.
Personally don’t believe America is quite dead yet. Despite the best attempts of both elements of her own citizenry and the Government to speed her down that road.
And if a fate would befall us. I doubt it’d be Balkanization. The Civil War was quite effective in eroding the rigidity of regional identity that would fuel such an event. At least across most of the country. A state or two being an exception. Like Texas.
IE Most people would identify as American. Before Virginian, New Yorker, Pennsylvanian, Missourian etc.
And out of every possible path other than Republic. We’d probably be more likely to follow the Roman Empire path. TBH.
The future is ultimately left up to the Will of Almighty God though. And the Republic will ultimately live or die by his will.
There is ample evidence calling into question whether the 17th Amendment was truly properly ratified. Due tot hat, it should be repealed and have to be ratified properly today. If not, then it no longer would exist.
No coincidence was passed same years as income tax and the central bank. All 3 ended the Republic as we knew it. 17th made it much easier for special interests including foreign to buy off favorable policy from 60 senators instead of having to go state to state which is more costly. And Senate approved judges and executive appointments and ratifies treaties. Effects of 17th in concert with 16th and central bank have been devastating. Think of alt history, we prob would have been colonizing mars already
...valid observations...
Yes it did.
No one represents the rights of the individual states anymore.
...sadly true...
When the states lost power,we lost the most important check on the feral govt we had.
I know my comment is obvious, but I like to EL 5 for the new people.
I do that a lot.....
...it is our responsibility to the "new kids" to get them up to speed...
...hold the line Patriot!
07
NO law made in conflict with the Constitution and Bill of Rights is legal. Any law made in conflict is Void and unenforceable. This only proves that Criminals have been in Congress for years, some of them are Still there.
This is correct. The same premise applies to Constitutional Amendments. An Amendment cannot go against the original intent of the Constitution, it can only add to it in a manner consistent with the original intent at the time the Constitution was written and adopted.
There are a few paths for us to right these wrongs. One is Nullification:
Yale Law Journal Quote “The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge’s instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: “It is not only ... [the juror’s] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted.” ~ Yale Law Journal Note: The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 174 (1964).
"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." - Quote by: Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Source: Federalist Papers #78, See also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762, Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178)
Somewhat ironically this isn’t Historically an unexpected development for Republics. With a move being done to ostensibly empower the people. Actually having the opposite effect.
Normally it coincides with the Republics gradual slide either into outright collapse, Ala the birth of the Roman Empire, or just a gradual decline until the entire region the Republic encompasses is essentially Detroit. A shell of forgotten Dreams and Wealth. With decay and Corruption ruling the day. Maybe plastered over with a veneer of what once was. To delude the local wealthy and Elite into believing they hadn’t run their country into the ground
Such as the closing years of the Venetian Merchant Republic.
...America had a good run...
,,,next comes balkanization...
Personally don’t believe America is quite dead yet. Despite the best attempts of both elements of her own citizenry and the Government to speed her down that road.
And if a fate would befall us. I doubt it’d be Balkanization. The Civil War was quite effective in eroding the rigidity of regional identity that would fuel such an event. At least across most of the country. A state or two being an exception. Like Texas.
IE Most people would identify as American. Before Virginian, New Yorker, Pennsylvanian, Missourian etc.
And out of every possible path other than Republic. We’d probably be more likely to follow the Roman Empire path. TBH.
The future is ultimately left up to the Will of Almighty God though. And the Republic will ultimately live or die by his will.
God is in control.
There is ample evidence calling into question whether the 17th Amendment was truly properly ratified. Due tot hat, it should be repealed and have to be ratified properly today. If not, then it no longer would exist.
...absolutely...