:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We generally hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time)
Join us on our next Conference Call and invite your friends.

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Remember: Our Trustee's Holiday Season Break begins at close of business on: December 15, 2017!
Which means he will not be available from then until: January 15, 2018; during which time there will be no conference calls and no support calls to our Trustee. However, the Fulfillment Office will only be closed from: December 22, 2017, until: January 8, 2018.

So, make sure that you take care of any of your end of year needs now, before our offices close.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.


We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Amendment Process —

Use this forum for contacting Team Law regarding the original jurisdiction elections.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Gabo
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Friday September 16th, 2005 7:27 pm MDT

Amendment Process —

Postby Gabo » Sunday January 28th, 2007 10:11 pm MST

Often I hear people saying that an amendment calling for direct election of senators couldn't be possible because even discussing the topic is forbidden.
I can't find such a limitation, so does anyone else know where the scope of the amending process limited?

Thanks for the help,
Matthew
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."
- Helen Keller

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Amendment Process

Postby Admin » Monday February 12th, 2007 11:46 am MST

:h: Gabo:
We waited to respond to this question to see if anyone else would do it. The matter does not need a specific ruling from the Supreme Court. It is constitutional, Article 1 § 4 Clause 1.
The Founding Fathers wrote:…except as to the places of choosing senators.

Alexander Hamilton is attributed to be “The Federalist” known as “Publius” that penned the submission to the New York Packet on February 22, 1788, which submission was the 59th Article so submitted (then anonymously) to the people of New York to help them understand why they should vote in favor of accepting our Constitution for the United States of America. The combined submissions of Publius (today acknowledged as writings of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay) are known as The Federalist Papers. The topic of that 59th Article was exactly that clause of the proposed Constitution. It in fact addressed exactly what has happened and why it should not have happened. The only unforeseeable element was the people’s failure to compel the State to seat the original jurisdiction Senators, regardless of what the national government does or fails to do.

Though at this moment we do not recall the Supreme Court case citation, a case reviewed the limitation of Congress to submit such an Amendment, when they are limited from the topic in the first instance. The case we recall dealt with the fact that the Constitution created the government and specified specific powers necessary for its existence, then limited those specific powers from the government and their exercise, beyond which it forbid all other power from the government. Thus, the government obviously has no authority to grant itself power or to usurp power already excluded from it. Thus, it has no authority to even discuss the implementation of such a power that it does not already have. Thus, Congress could not possibly have the authority to even suggest 18th Article of amendment, which included controls on the people and their ability to manufacture and sell a thing because Congress was not granted the authority to limit or control the people in the first instance. It was determined that the Constitution did not limit the people rather it created and limited the government. Therefore, in order for Congress to have the right to discuss such legislation to even present it before itself for an amendment it would have to have had the people present to them first an amendment that allowed them to discuss the matter. Thus, the 18th Article of Amendment was repealed and the XXI replaced it, which simply acknowledged specific controls on importation and transportation of “intoxicating liquors”, which controls were already generally conferred on government in the Constitution.

Thus, Corp. U.S. 17th Article of amendment does not comply with the principles of the Constitution of the United States of America and is not lawful as such an amendment. Which fact says nothing about Corp. U.S. or its constitution, or its ratification process.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Psholtz
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thursday January 18th, 2007 5:59 pm MST

Re: Amendment Process

Postby Psholtz » Monday March 5th, 2007 3:07 pm MST

I see Federalist 59 as addressing the question of why the States should not have sole discretionary power over how federal elections are to be conducted, and Federalist 60 as addressing why the Union should not have sole discretionary power over how federal elections are to be conducted. The Constitution ultimately gives most of the power over federal elections to the States, and reserves some discretionary power to the Union, giving a balance.. Fed #59 and #60 seem (to me) to explore this balance of power, but I'm not seeing in those papers where it explicitly forbids the Congress from discussing the prospect of direct election of Senators w/o an amendment giving them the power to discuss such an amendment.

I see your point about the Constitution forbidding Congress from passing acts/regulations that might change the place where Senators are elected (i.e., the several State legislatures), but if there has been an amendment passed changing Article I, Section 4, then isn't the point moot? If the 17th amendment changes how Article I, Section 4 operates and changes how the senators are elected, then ... isn't that all that's required?

I guess I'm still looking for the reading/interpretation - either in the Constitution itself, or in the Federalist Papers, or in the Supreme Court rulings, that would forbid the Congress from even discussing the direct election of Senators, before an amendment were passed giving the Congress authority to even discuss such an amendment.

I agree, the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) is a terrible amendment..

But that's neither here nor there in terms of the 17th amendment, is it?
Thus, Corp. U.S. 17th Article of amendment does not comply with the principles of the Constitution of the United States of America and is not lawful as such an amendment. Which fact says nothing about Corp. U.S. or its constitution, or its ratification process.
I agree that the 17th amendment is a terrible amendment, and violates the spirit of the Constitution, and I don't doubt that it probably wasn't ratified correctly, but what I'm wondering about is the assertion that Congress was prohibited from even discussing the direct election of Senators w/o first passing an amendment giving Congress the authority to discuss the direct election of Senators.

Gldskr
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Friday January 26th, 2007 11:09 pm MST

forbidden acts

Postby Gldskr » Monday March 5th, 2007 4:41 pm MST

Psholtz:
The point of Admin's response was to point out that the constitution limited the federal government's power and those powers not specifically delegated to it were reserved to the states or the people.
If the 17th amendment changes how Article I, Section 4 operates and changes how the senators are elected, then ... isn't that all that's required?
The constituion specifically gave the state legislatures the power to elect Senators, so the prerequisite for amending this process would be for the states to first relinguish this power to the feds. Once relinguished in an amendment, the feds could then do what they did.

Gldskr

Psholtz
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thursday January 18th, 2007 5:59 pm MST

Postby Psholtz » Monday March 5th, 2007 5:29 pm MST

gldskr wrote:The constituion specifically gave the state legislatures the power to elect Senators, so the prerequisite for amending this process would be for the states to first relinguish this power to the feds. Once relinguished in an amendment, the feds could then do what they did.
Yes, that makes sense..

I'm just playing devil's advocate to better understand the issue, though.

So what you're saying is that the federal government had no authority to change the way Senators are elected unless the States first gave the Feds that power. But do we know from whence the impetus behind the 17th amendment first come (aside, perhaps, from the obvious answer: the banksters)?

Did the States initiate the process to amend the Constitution in this way, or did the Feds?

Per my reading of Article I, Section 4, it merely states that Congress may not pass laws/acts/regulations/etc changing the way that Senators are chosen. It says nothing about the executive branch, or about the States, etc, and the statement it makes is only in the context of Congress passing laws/regulations to this effect. It's silent on the amendment process itself, and if that Article/Section is amended so as to operate differently, then it's amended no? (no matter where the amendment process started from?)

I'd like to track down that Supreme Court ruling on this issue if possible.. be interesting to see their opinion.. :-D

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: forbidden acts

Postby Admin » Tuesday March 6th, 2007 12:45 pm MST

:h: Gldskr:
We will first say, thanks for your on-point response. We would also correct it a bit by stating that the states do not possess the right or the authority to relinquish (to the feds or to anyone else) the privilege the people gave them through the Constitution for the United States of America of electing their national Senators. That privilege is consumed within the sacred trust the People placed in them and only the People have the authority to change that.

Also, even if the states could relinquish that authority, that would still fail to provide Congress the authority to say where Senators will be elected, which privilege is restricted from Congress by the Constitution as we already showed.

Nonetheless, your logic was right on target when you recognized what we were showing that the authority was already placed in the States and in the People and it was expressly refused to Congress; thus, Congress is forbidden from even discussing the matter without violating the nature of their very existence and the authorities that were granted to them.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Tuesday March 6th, 2007 1:50 pm MST

:h: Psholtz:
The reason we referenced the The Federalist Number 59, was not because it has any effect on law, the publication does not, it was only because the authors of the Constitution itself expressed their understanding of their intent in those papers in an effort to help the people of New York to realize that they should support the new Constitution; thus, our reference to paper Number 59 was made because that particular paper addressed exactly the clause in question and the exact effect they were attempting to prevent by providing Congress with the authority to tell the States how the elections would proceed but not where. The election of the national Senate’s Senators is constitutionally required to remain where the People placed it in the State Senate and Congress was granted no authority to change that, in fact that authority was explicitly forbidden from them as we already showed in response to your first question. The reason that necessity was imposed was expressed in said paper Number 59:
The Federalist Number 59 wrote:Nothing can be more evident, than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate it, by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs. It is to little purpose to say, that a neglect or omission of this kind would not be likely to take place. The constitutional possibility of the thing, without an equivalent for the risk, is an unanswerable objection.
Thus, we see the founding fathers were attempting to make it reasonably impossible to the States to fail to post original jurisdiction Senators, by giving Congress the authority to tell them how they were required to elect the same. When Corp. U.S. adopted its 17th Article of Amendment as if it were an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the States were tricked into exactly what the quote above warns against. They, for all intents and purposes, annihilated our original jurisdiction government, by failing to elect the original jurisdiction Senators in the face of the obviously un-constitutional 17th amendment.

Again, the Federalist Papers have no authority in law, they simply help us understand the mindset of the founding fathers on some particular points of their deliberations, such that we may see the wisdom in the Constitution for the United States of America as it was written. And, we do not need a Supreme Court decision to see the explicit language of the Constitution itself and the obvious intent of the founding fathers to keep both Congress and the States, on target seating the original jurisdiction government Senators.
psholtz wrote:…but if there has been an amendment passed changing Article I, Section 4, then isn't the point moot? If the 17th amendment changes how Article I, Section 4 operates and changes how the senators are elected, then ... isn't that all that's required?
Again, Congress cannot grant themselves such an authority even by amendment, especially one that was not ratified as required by the Constitution and one that does not designate what it is specifically amending. That simply is not how it works. Again we already stated that we did not recall the citations where the Court determined that the only way such an amendment could have been proposed by Congress would be if they had first passed an amendment that would give them the authority to discuss the matter, so posing that portion of your question again serves no beneficial purpose.

It is not Team Law’s job to educate you or to do your research for you, rather it is our job to help people realize the necessity of learning and applying the law for themselves. The way we accomplish that task is by providing people the materials we have provided and by helping our beneficiaries learn how to educate themselves. Whereas, we already provided our sufficient answer to your original question, which should have opened the door for your own research that would help you see the facts were correct as we originally presented them is as far as we can delve into this matter without your being a Team Law beneficiary. In fact if this matter was not such a critical element of what happened this level of support already surpasses what we should have provided whether you agree with what we provide or not. We are pleased that you raised the question and that you will continue to search for support of the fact that Congress can only do what it was provided authority to do and no more. Of course that has never stopped them from stepping beyond their bounds in the past, except where the people learn how to hold them accountable to their limitations. That case discussion was related to the bogus 18th Article as we showed above.
psholtz wrote:Did the States initiate the process to amend the Constitution in this way, or did the Feds?
Congress unlawfully initiated it.
psholtz wrote:Per my reading of Article I, Section 4, … It's silent on the amendment process itself
We disagree. As shown above: the law explicitly excludes Congress from saying where Senators are elected. Whereas Congress was explicitly excluded from the authority they cannot grant that authority back to themselves by any means, especially where that authority is already vested in the States’ Senates.
psholtz wrote:and if that Article/Section is amended so as to operate differently, then it's amended no? (no matter where the amendment process started from?)
No, that is not correct. The case in point is the 18th Article of amendment. It was repealed because it was not lawful. It was not just a bad amendment it was a violation of the Law; thus, it was repealed. If an Amendment is not lawful, it compels and or provides nothing, it is only an unlawful law.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Psholtz
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thursday January 18th, 2007 5:59 pm MST

Postby Psholtz » Tuesday March 6th, 2007 8:41 pm MST

_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin :h:
Having completed our review of the post that was posted here, we determined that it was argumentative concluded to delete it from our Open Forum system because it is does not comply with the intention of our Open Forum system, which intention is well stated in our Board Policies

We did leave the posts that followed this post in response to it in case some of those may be of value.:t^:
_____________________________________________

Psholtz
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thursday January 18th, 2007 5:59 pm MST

Re: forbidden acts

Postby Psholtz » Tuesday March 6th, 2007 9:15 pm MST

Gldskr wrote:Psholtz:
The point of Admin's response was to point out that the constitution limited the federal government's power and those powers not specifically delegated to it were reserved to the states or the people.
You realize that those parts of the Constitution which you cite above, and which I highlight in red, are themselves the result of an amendment process, no? (specifically 9 and 10) :lol:

That's my issue w/ this whole discussion.
Admin wrote:We would also correct it a bit by stating that the states do not possess the right or the authority to relinquish (to the feds or to anyone else) the privilege the people gave them through the Constitution for the United States of America of electing their national Senators. That privilege is consumed within the sacred trust the People placed in them and only the People have the authority to change that.
It seems to me that this (and what Gldskr wrote above) is tantamount to saying that as per the 9th and 10th amendments, no organ of the federal Union (whether these be the States, or the various organs of the federal government) have the power to even discuss Constitutional amendments unless we first pass an amendment giving them the authority to discuss such an amendment.

If this is true, then how are amendments to be passed at all?

The people get their chance to voice their opinion when the amendment comes up for vote in their State. Moreover, Congress is meant to be the elected, representive assembly which "represents" the people and their desires. If Congress (the representative body of the people) is prohibited from discussing such things, then how are the people themselves supposed to discuss such things, or make such changes?

I don't disagree that the 17th amendment is a very poor one, and that it violates the spirit of the Constitution, but the principle of not being able to amendment the Constitution w/o first passing an amendment giving Congress the power to think about amending the Constitution in that particular way seems a bit circular to me..

Gabo
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Friday September 16th, 2005 7:27 pm MDT

Postby Gabo » Tuesday March 6th, 2007 10:18 pm MST

Psholtz, the Constitution is a document which grants very limited powers to the federal government.

The problem with your argument is that it assumes the federal government begins with supreme power over the states and people, and then is limited in that power by the Constitution.
It is in fact the exact opposite, the federal government only being able to exercise powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment does not limit the power of the federal government, it simply makes it clear that the federal government cannot do anything outside its granted powers.

In the Constitution, Congress is granted the power to amend the Constitution, but twice is that power expressly prohibited from allowing direct election of Senators.
Article 1, section 4 wrote:the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Article 5, section 1 wrote:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution ... and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Therefore it only follows that Congress does not have the authority to amend the Constitution in order to strip states of their Senatorial power.
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."

- Helen Keller

Geibes
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 116
Joined: Friday July 8th, 2005 12:34 pm MDT

Postby Geibes » Wednesday March 7th, 2007 8:23 am MST

Keep this in mind as well:
Admin wrote:Thus, Corp. U.S. 17th Article of amendment does not comply with the principles of the Constitution of the United States of America and is not lawful as such an amendment. Which fact says nothing about Corp. U.S. or its constitution, or its ratification process.
The 17th Amendment is not part of the original jurisdiction government or its Constitution.
Geibes
Education is bliss!

Psholtz
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thursday January 18th, 2007 5:59 pm MST

Postby Psholtz » Wednesday March 7th, 2007 1:10 pm MST

Gabo wrote:The problem with your argument is that it assumes the federal government begins with supreme power over the states and people, and then is limited in that power by the Constitution.
Where did I make that assumption?
The Ninth Amendment does not limit the power of the federal government, it simply makes it clear that the federal government cannot do anything outside its granted powers.
I would argue that specifically instructing the federal government that it cannot do anything outside its granted powers *is* in fact a limit on its power.. and a healthy limit.
In the Constitution, Congress is granted the power to amend the Constitution, but twice is that power expressly prohibited from allowing direct election of Senators.
Article 1, section 4 wrote:the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Article 5, section 1 wrote:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution ... and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Now we're getting somewhere!

Like I said, I don't know that Article I, Sec 4 prohibits the 17th amendment, as the 17th amendment seems to "amend" that part of the Constitution.. but I do see how the 17th amendment runs afoul of Article V, and thus could be construed as an "unlawful" or "unconstitutional" amendment.

Thanks for pointing that out.

But as per staying on point on the thread, I don't see where Congress is forbidden from even discussing modifications to the Constitution (unless it's first granted the power to discuss such modifications in an amendment), nor do I see Federalist 59 as having much bearing on this dicussion. Per my reading, Federalist 59 concerns itself more with a) the States have the power to elect Senators; and b) why the States should *not* have the (direct) power of electing anyone else.
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin: :h:
We merely referenced paper 59 because Hamilton so well noted the danger in the failure of Senators being appointed by the states; and, that does stand as an evidence of the necessity of not giving Congress the authority to change where Senators are elected, doesn’t it? (this question is rhetorical, if you do not see the point, that is OK. It has been hashed over well enough.)
_____________________________________________

Is there a place in the Constitution where Conress is forbidden from even discussing things that do not fall under its authority? Certainly Congress is forbidden from *acting* outside its authority, but does the Constitution even regulate those things which Congress is permitted to discuss?

Thanks for your feedback.
_____________________________________________
Inserted by Admin
At some point we hope you will get off of that horse. As we stated, that comes from a Supreme Court rule we read once regarding the 18th amendment. As we also stated, we do not recall the citation for that case. It was the Supreme Court’s opinion. We share it. Their opinion expressed the uselessness of Congress discussing any matter they have no authority to act upon. Doing so would obviously take them beyond the intent of their authority. Attempting to figure a way around their limitations of their authority is also beyond their authority. Thus, in order for them to do their job they must stay within the bounds of their authority and to discuss doing something like using the Constitution to limit the people is outside of their bounds; thus, they would first have to amend the constitution to provide them such an authority to discuss the matter before they could so propose such an amendment to use the Constitution to limit the people. For this discussion that point is closed. :t^:
_____________________________________________

Gabo
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Friday September 16th, 2005 7:27 pm MDT

Postby Gabo » Wednesday March 7th, 2007 5:31 pm MST

Psholtz wrote:Where did I make that assumption?
You assume when you say that the Ninth Amendment is limiting the power of the federal government. In order to limit a power, that power must first exist.
Therefore you assume the federal government already had power over the states and people if you believe that the Ninth Amendment limited that power.
Psholtz wrote:I would argue that specifically instructing the federal government that it cannot do anything outside its granted powers *is* in fact a limit on its power.. and a healthy limit.
In order to limit something, that thing first must exist.
Since the federal government was never granted such power over the states or the people, then the Ninth Amendment could not have limited such a power.

One cannot limit a power that does not exist.
Psholtz wrote:Like I said, I don't know that Article I, Sec 4 prohibits the 17th amendment, as the 17th amendment seems to "amend" that part of the Constitution..
Article I section 4 explicitly limits the power "as to the places of choosing Senators." The Constitution can't contradict itself, so in order to amend the election of Senators, they would first have to amend the Constitution to remove the above clause.
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."

- Helen Keller

Psholtz
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thursday January 18th, 2007 5:59 pm MST

Postby Psholtz » Thursday March 8th, 2007 12:37 pm MST

Yes, I see your point. Thanks for pointing that out. :-)
Good point.


Return to “Elections”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest