Main Forums > Politics
There Are Four Boxes To Be Used In The Defense Of Liberty:
ConstitutionCowboy:
--- Quote from: kgbsquirrel on July 08, 2020, 10:21:38 PM ---It is literally the only amendment banned from being added to the constitution, but there it is.
--- End quote ---
Having studied Article V in regard to the Seventeenth Amendment, where Article V clearly states that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, and no other amendment dismissing or altering Article V changing the verbiage from the suffrage of the several states to suffrage of the people of a state in the Senate, the Seventeenth Amendment is unenforceable against any state that did not ratify said Seventeenth Amendment.
Please note that the Constitution is unalterable and unambiguous in its use of words. A state is a state, the people are the people. To say a state and the people of a state are one and the same is a misconstrued use of the language in the Constitution. One such instance of the complete distinction between specifying people(the people) and a state(the several states) is in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, to wit: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immensities of the Citizens in the several States." People or the people are always addresses specifically. States or the several states are always addressed specifically.
Codos to kgbsquirrel. I appreciate the enlightenment!
Woody
kgbsquirrel:
--- Quote from: ConstitutionCowboy on July 09, 2020, 03:57:49 PM ---Having studied Article V in regard to the Seventeenth Amendment, where Article V clearly states that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, and no other amendment dismissing or altering Article V changing the verbiage from the suffrage of the several states to suffrage of the people of a state in the Senate, the Seventeenth Amendment is unenforceable against any state that did not ratify said Seventeenth Amendment.
Please note that the Constitution is unalterable and unambiguous in its use of words. A state is a state, the people are the people. To say a state and the people of a state are one and the same is a misconstrued use of the language in the Constitution. One such instance of the complete distinction between specifying people(the people) and a state(the several states) is in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, to wit: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immensities of the Citizens in the several States." People or the people are always addresses specifically. States or the several states are always addressed specifically.
Codos to kgbsquirrel. I appreciate the enlightenment!
Woody
--- End quote ---
Also my conclusion. I wonder if States could withdraw their consent, basically unratifying the 17th from themselves.
ConstitutionCowboy:
--- Quote from: kgbsquirrel on July 09, 2020, 09:41:16 PM ---Also my conclusion. I wonder if States could withdraw their consent, basically unratifying the 17th from themselves.
--- End quote ---
The way I see it, since the language of Article V has not been addressed(amended), I see no reason on Earth or in the Constitution why a state could not withdraw its ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. All it would take is an act of the legislature and signature of the governor.
If enough states withdrew their ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment on the grounds of reclaiming their legislative power as guaranteed in Article V, the Seventeenth Amendment could become null and void as long as there are not enough states remaining signatory to it. It would have to be repealed off the books though, lest enough left-leaning states signed back on to it. Case in point, a proposed amendment back in 1789 became the Twenty-seventh Amendment when it was finally ratified May 7, 1992. It was "on the books" for over 200 years before it was ratified. (See new thread on Congress's automatic pay raises.)
Woody
kgbsquirrel:
--- Quote from: ConstitutionCowboy on July 10, 2020, 11:30:06 AM ---The way I see it, since the language of Article V has not been addressed(amended), I see no reason on Earth or in the Constitution why a state could not withdraw its ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. All it would take is an act of the legislature and signature of the governor.
If enough states withdrew their ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment on the grounds of reclaiming their legislative power as guaranteed in Article V, the Seventeenth Amendment could become null and void as long as there are not enough states remaining signatory to it. It would have to be repealed off the books though, lest enough left-leaning states signed back on to it. Case in point, a proposed amendment back in 1789 became the Twenty-seventh Amendment when it was finally ratified May 7, 1992. It was "on the books" for over 200 years before it was ratified. (See new thread on Congress's automatic pay raises.)
Woody
--- End quote ---
13 is the number of states you need.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version