An article by Paul Hanson

The U.S Constitution “originally” laid out the separation of powers
between the federal government and the State governments in the first
paragraph of article 1 section 3. How this paragraph accomplished
that goal will become clear later in this article. This paragraph
states:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
from each state, chosen by the LEGISLATURE thereof, for six years;
and each Senator shall have one vote.”

Then in Article I, section 4 we also find this:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or
alter such Regulations, except as to the PLACES of chusing
Senators.” Those places were to be in the State Legislatures.

This balance of power was then permanently locked in by the last
clause of article 5. I call this clause the magic bullet because
it can’t be stopped by any means that I can see. Article 5 dealing
with amendments to the Constitution clearly states:

“… and that NO State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its
equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

By including this in the section dealing with amendments, it is
obvious that the sections of the Constitution concerning selection of
Senators and the suffrage they provided was not amendable unless ALL
of States consented and that this was to be a permanent provision. All
of the above shows how adamant the founders were about this point by
referring to the States representation on no less than 3 occasions. If
even ONE State objected to changes in an area that would affect their
suffrage, that change would be invalid. The normal ratification
process could not be used to alter this principle. Yet that is exactly
what happened when the 17th amendment was adopted.

The father of our Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 43,
further supports this claim. He states that the Constitution was
completely amendable with 2 exceptions only. One of the exceptions
dealt with the importation of slaves and became moot after 1808. The
other was the State’s equal suffrage in the Senate.

It appears, then, that this all boils down to definition. What is the
definition of State suffrage? In Federalist 59, Hamilton explains
State suffrage as the State legislatures having a voice in the
Senate. The 17th amendment effectively canceled that voice and
turned it over to the citizens of the States. I submit to you that
now, however, this definition has been left entirely to the
discretion of the States themselves. The courts have no say in the
matter. I will explain this bold statement in detail later. Why do I
feel this issue vitally important to restoring States rights? For
the same reasons our Founders did, to support the concept of
federalism and the balance of power between the States and federal
government.

This concept strictly limited the federal governments powers to those
specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution. The People, through the Constitution, permitted the
national government to exercise certain enumerated powers. By
limiting the federal government’s power and granting the States
nearly unlimited power, the federal government would merely be
protecting the States collectively and allowing the States to handle
their own affairs.

Federalism allowed the States wide latitude to run their own affairs
and by doing so, created 13 laboratories of freedom to experiment and
formulate the best system of self-governance. This situation also
created an atmosphere of competition between the States. When a State
allowed its inhabitants to prosper and keep what they earn, The State
would prosper and be allowed to continue governing its people.
When the State government became a burden to them, the people could
vote out the tyrants during the next election. Another alternative was
for the businesses and the people to move to a State that was more to
their liking. Business leaving the State would cause the tax base to
erode and so would the peoples support of that government. Sooner or
later, either the State government or the people would wake up and
correct the problem.

The 17th amendment took away the States protection from the abuses of
federal power allowing the federal government to get away with
legislating in areas where they had no business doing so. This was a
grave error seriously upsetting the balance of power so carefully
crafted into our magnificent Constitution. The concept of Federalism
was all but destroyed leading to endless abuses by the federal
government from which there is no escape.

The enforcement mechanism against federal encroachment prior to the
invalid 17th was the States’ representation in the Senate. The “Peoples
House” i.e. the House of Representatives amply represents the people, while
the States were to be represented by the Senate.

The States now have no representation and we are experiencing the
folly of this venture toward pure democracy today. We were founded as
a Republic not a democracy and now we see why. All the States needed
to do in the past was to recall or direct their Senators before a bad
law made it to the floor of the Senate for a vote and the damage could
be stopped in its tracks. Hamilton’s Federalist essay 59 addresses
this issue directly. This power has been unconstitutionally snatched
from the States by the invalid 17th amendment.

Careful study of the 17th amendments ratification reveals at least 10
states that failed to do so. Those 10 were FL, MS, DE, KY, UT, MD, RI,
AL, IA and GA. The clear manner in which article 5 is written places
the statement dealing with States equal suffrage in the Senate after
the words: “Provided that no Amendment which may be made…” further
showing that this was an exception to the rule regarding amendments.

With the failure those of 10 states to ratify the 17th, they were
denied their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent in
violation of Article 5, thus making the 17th amendment invalid.
However, once any state declares the 17th invalid, based on what
I have pointed out here, that State, even though it had previously
consented to the 17th can withdraw its consent anytime it so chooses.
Any State that previously consented can say “we no longer consent” because
Article 5 mentions nary a word about the permanence of any such consent.
The right of the state to withdraw that consent is further fully supported
by the clear wording of the 10th amendment:

AMENDMENT X
(1791)

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”

The power to withdraw that consent is not prohibited by article 5 so
the power to withdraw it is reserved and retained by the States. Fits
like a glove. All the states need to do is select their Senators in
their legislatures and send them to Washington. Simple. And what would
the courts say about move such as this? No court can attempt to make
the State comply with the 17th because they won’t have jurisdiction to
try the case. Here’s why:

When a sovereign State declares the 17th amendment invalid, the Senate
would be unlawfully seated. It would then follow that the Supreme
Court is also unlawfully seated as is the entire federal bench because
the Senate approves those federal court appointments including the
Supreme Court. Anything decided by those federal courts would be null
and void. The State could simply refuse to recognize the jurisdiction
of the court system. The States could argue that the federal judiciary
has been confirmed by a Senate that did not have the states best
interest at heart.

The only other argument that could be made against the State would be
the power of the Senate to be the ultimate judge of their elections
and refuse to seat the Senators. However, how can an illegitimate
Senate make such a decision? The answer is, they can’t.

I have presented these facts in many forums over the years and they
have never been successfully challenged. One argument that always
seems to arise is this: “Well, all the states do have equal suffrage
because they still each have two senators.” This invalid argument
comes from a lack of full understanding of what “suffrage” really
stands for and by a focus on the first term “equal” while ignoring the
second, “suffrage.” The point of my entire article is that the States
(meaning the State Legislatures) are the ones who have lost suffrage.
The people of the State now elect Senators and are in possession of
that suffrage. The real point is who do these senators now represent?
After I make this point, I usually get this: “Well, the people ARE
the “State.” This is not entirely accurate either. In all instances I
can find in the Constitution where it is speaking about the States, it
is speaking of the Legislature of the States. The best example I can
find that clearly delineates between the two is the last clause of
that wonderful 10th Amendment again. That clause clearly lists the
“People” and the “States” as two separate entities. If they were the
same thing, there would be no need to list them both in the very
same sentence.

There are other far-reaching implications of an invalid 17th and I’m
sure that opponents of what’s been written here will use them to fight
these truths. I will not give them ammunition by detailing what those
far reaching implications are. However, I will say this: If we
endeavor to rid ourselves of the invalid 17th amendment in the manner
outlined above, be prepared for the fight of your lives because there
are many entrenched interests that would like nothing more than to
never have this information reach the light of day.

There have been many articles written concerning the “repeal” of the
17th amendment. While many of these articles correctly point out the
folly of the 17th, they fail to realize that a movement to repeal is
nothing more than a pipe dream. The only way to remove the 17th
amendment is through outright repudiation using the method I have
described above. I will explain why below.

There are 2 methods laid out in Article 5 for amending the
Constitution. One of those methods is through a Convention of the
States. I will not go into details as to why this method should never
be used under any circumstances other than to say that if you truly
value your freedoms, this method should be avoided at all costs. The
other method would be an exercise in futility. To use the method that
all the other amendments have used since the 10th would entail having
to first convince 67 senators to vote themselves out of a job. Then
290 House members would have to vote for the repeal of an amendment
which will make all the laws they want to pass much more difficult
to push through the Senate. A senate which as a result of its passage
would now be jealously guarding the rights of the States that the
House laws frequently trample. If that isn’t enough, you need to get
38 state legislatures to vote for repealing an amendment over the
objections of the people who would feel like their right to vote was
being stolen (a right which never really existed due to an invalid
17th). To educate the masses in 38 separate states that the 17th
amendment was a mistake is an insurmountable task. To do it for just
one, as would be the case in a move to repudiate it, Maybe. In a
repudiation argument, it could be demonstrated to the people that the
right to vote for their Senators should have never been theirs in the
first place due to the fraudulent manner in which the 17th was
adopted.

My first target for a move to repudiate would be done in a State that
swings to the right most of the time and where the voters are well
informed and leery of the feds. Utah would be my choice since Utah
rejected the 17th outright and they have been stung recently by
federal land grabs. Please join me in this endeavor to repudiate the
17th and get the concept of federalism firmly back on track.

We must educate ourselves and our posterity in the wonderful documents
that founded our great Republic if we are ever to set it back on
course toward freedom and prosperity. That is why I’m writing this
today. My positions on the 17th amendment are supported by the
Constitution of the United States including the 10th amendment and
“The Federalist Papers”, specifically Madison 43 and Hamilton 59.

Thanks for your attention,

Sincerely,

Paul C. Hanson

Traffic Safety – As introduced, prohibits entering into or modifying existing contracts for installation of surveillance cameras if revenues from traffic fines are shared with company; and extends traffic signals’ yellow light at intersections with surveillance cameras to five seconds. – Amends TCA Title 6; Title 7 and Title 55.

This is a very important bill for freedom. Red Light cameras or, as we like to call them….SCAMERAS….are a scourge to a free society. Please contact your State Senator and let your voice be heard. You can find your Senator’s contact info here:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/legislators/

The State of Tennessee’s jihad against homeschoolers continues.

It began in late 2007 and continued into 2008. An employee of the Department of Education, nominally in charge of the office of non-public schooling was criss-crossing the state making a presentation in which she declared that the diplomas issued by Tennessee’s church-related, category IV schools “were not worth the paper they were printed on.”

As a result of her presentations, other agencies and departments of the state began to reject diplomas issued to homeschoolers when a high school diploma was required by law for certain regulated categories of employment. At first it was the Tennessee Police Officer’s Standards and Training Board (POST) which refused to allow a homeschooled high school graduate to continue serving as a sheriff’s deputy, even though he had completed the police academy taught by Walter State Community College and already been hired by the sheriff’s department.

Then the Department of Children’s Services refused to allow a homeschooled high school graduate to continue to work in a daycare as a caregiver, because the law stipulated that a caregiver must hold a high school diploma recognized by the state of Tennessee.

Now comes word that just this past week the Tennessee Board of Cosmetology has refused to permit the licensing of a young women because her high school diploma is from a church-related category IV school.

Once again, it bears repeating: The State of Tenneessee recognizes these diplomas for the awarding of HOPE lottery scholarships. The University of Tennessee and all of its campuses recognize these diplomas for purposes of admission to college. The state community college system recognizes these diplomas for the purpose of admission to a community college. Vanderbilt, Sewanee, Rhodes, King, Belmont, David Lipscomb, & Lee University all recognize these diplomas for admission to their college degree programs.

It is only the few state boards where the Department of Education has some influence that have rejected them. Homeschooled kids are smart enough to enlist in any branch of the armed services, attend any public or private university – but according to the state of Tenneessee they are not qualified to work in a daycare, serve as a police officer, or dye someone’s hair.

Folks, this is outrageous. This is the petty tyranny of a unionized bureaucracy. The educrats cannot stand the fact that a few courageous families have said “no thank you” to the government-monopoly factory-model one-size-fits-all public school system. Perhaps they have been emboldened by the Obama administrations shut-down of the Washington DC voucher system. Who knows?

The Tennessee Legislature has the opportunity to correct this bureacratic jihad against homeschoolers. They can over-rule the Department of Education and restore some sanity to the state’s policy on education.

The Tennessee State Senate is scheduled to hear SB0433 this coming Monday, May 4th. Here’s the official summary of what that bill does:

“Schools, Home – As introduced, requires that diplomas issued by home schools be recognized by all state and local governmental entities as having the same rights and privileges of diplomas issued by public school systems. – Amends TCA Title 1, Chapter 3.”

Tennesseans, call your senators and urge them to vote for SB0433.

For more information, see Kay Brooks’ TN Home Ed website
and updates on http://www.redhatrob.com

Good, this can help the Republicans more than anyone can imagine. Going into the next primaries we can have people in the primaries that we want, not people that we are safe with, without fear of loosing because we would be to small to make a filibuster (because we are now). Lets take this and run with it! RINO WEED OUT in the next elections.

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared “that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power “to provide for the common defense and general welfare” to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States

CLICK HERE for FREE NRA Membership Offer.

CLICK HERE for a full list of NRA membership benefits, including insurance.

What’s the catch? Well there’s really none for the first year. However, you will be billed if you choose to renew your membership. Also anyone signing up should know that you’ll receive a lot of mail solicitations from the NRA. For this special web offer, the NRA also requires your email address and phone number. Please note–to enjoy all the insurance protections of the NRA you’ll need to fill out some additional online forms once you receive your membership number.

We will be holding a protest against the Red Light Scameras in Jonesborough. (We will have setup in the morning and the event will start at 10:00 am)

We will have a petition to sign to deliver to the Mayor and Alderman, an opportunity for you to take out your frustrations against a “scamera”, as well as some other fun activities.

Please feel free to invite as many people to this event. We want it to be a great success. This will be a family event.

Hope to see you all there!

In Liberty,

Joanna Simmons

Date: Saturday, May 9, 2009
Time: 8:00am – 7:00pm
Location: Jonesborough Town Hall
Street: 117 Boone Street
City/Town: Jonesborough, TN

View Map

The Tea Party was great, with alot of support across all isles. My only complaint is why Rep Roe sent someone. Its hard to talk about how bad you think taxes are when you pass a illegal tax. David Davis called him out on it several times. Every speaker came out swinging from taxes flat and fair, spending, and all the way down to traffic scameras. There where a few hundred that showed up in the cold. People driving by showed support beeping their horns while driving by this never stopped.

My biggest surprise was Matthew Jeffers of Students of American Liberty at E.T.S.U. You can view his speech here. Glad he is on our side.

This was hosted by  Johnny Roberts and put together by James Queen