Taking Back Our Stolen History
Amendment 17
Amendment 17

Amendment 17

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”

While many constitutional amendments have added to the rights held by Americans, changed the balance of power between the federal government and states, or altered elections for the President, the structure of Congress in the written Constitution has barely been touched since 1791. The only constitutional amendment to do so in a substantial way is the Seventeenth Amendment, which removed from state legislatures the power to choose U.S. Senators and gave that power directly to voters in each state. This change was made during the height of the Progressive Era, a populist movement that sought increased suffrage, a bigger role for government, and other democratic reforms.

This is the principle behind “Bicameralism” – two branches of the legislative body answering to two separate constituencies, the Senate to the elected state governments and the House directly to the people. The 17th Amendment changed this to provide for Senators being elected by the popular vote.

According to James Madison, giving state legislatures the power to choose Senators provided a “double advantage,” both “favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former.” The Federalist No. 62. George Mason argued that state legislative selection gave states the power of self-defense against the federal government. Wendell Pierce argued that the contrast between a state legislatively-appointed Senate and a popularly-elected House would increase the types of interests represented in the federal government. By requiring the consent of two different constituencies to any legislation—the people’s representatives in the House and the state legislatures in the Senate—the composition of the Senate was seen as essential to the system of bicameralism, which would require “the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy.”

Whether state legislative appointment was included in the Constitution to protect state governments, though, is a matter of some dispute. Contemporary legal scholar Terry Smith argues that it was merely the result of the intersection of two other goals, the Great Compromise giving states equally-weighted votes in the Senate and a desire to limit popular representation.

Either way, state legislatures were not given other powers that might have allowed them to more directly control Senators, like the power to recall Senators or to instruct them on how to vote. As a result, scholars like William Riker and Larry Kramer have argued that state legislatures exerted little control over Senators at any point, although more recent work by Todd Zywicki has argued that this is overblown and state legislative control did have a substantial effect on the way the Senate operated. (See Todd Zywicki’s individual explainer on the Seventeenth Amendment.) 

However, starting in roughly the 1830s and then more dramatically after the Civil War, the vision the Founders had—in which state legislatures would deliberate over the selection of Senators—began to fray. First, politicians seeking Senate seats began campaigning for state legislative candidates in a process known as the “public canvass.” The result was that state legislative races became secondary to Senate races. The most famous instance of this was the race for Senate in Illinois in 1858, in which Abraham Lincoln faced off with Stephen Douglass despite neither being on the ballot. In 1890s, many states started holding direct primaries for Senate, reducing the degree of influence state legislatures had over selection. Some states went further and began using something known as the “Oregon System,” under which state legislative candidates were required to state on the ballot whether they would abide by the results of a formally non-binding direct election for U.S. Senator. By 1908, twenty-eight of the forty-five states used the Oregon System or some other form of direct elections.

The push for the Seventeenth Amendment occurred both in state legislatures and the House of Representatives. Between 1890 and 1905, thirty-one state legislatures passed resolutions either calling on Congress to pass an amendment providing for the direct election of senators, to hold a conference with other states to work on such an amendment, or to have a constitutional convention such that the direct elections for Senator could be included in a newly drawn Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution providing for direct elections passed the House in each session between 1893 and 1912.

But several influential Senators managed to hold off the Amendment for more than two decades. Their effort was aided by a decision to link the Amendment to a controversial effort to remove from Congress the power to pass rules governing federal elections under the Elections Clause of Article I. Eventually, though, the issues were split and it passed both Houses in 1912 and was ratified by the States in 1913.  Augustus Bacon of Georgia was the first senator directly elected under the terms of the Seventeenth Amendment, on July 15, 1913.

The arguments for the Seventeenth Amendment sounded in the case for direct democracy, the problem of hung state legislatures, and in freeing the Senate from the influence of corrupt state legislatures. The Progressive movement that pushed the Seventeenth Amendment supported other constitutional changes at federal, state, and local levels like the initiative and referendum, non-partisan elections, and unicameral legislatures (although there has never been a major effort to provide for democratic election of federal judges).

The Seventeenth Amendment was seen as part of a broader effort to make an end-run around the control that parties, machines, and special interests had over state legislatures. (Ironically, however, big city party machines supported the Seventeenth Amendment, largely because state legislative apportionment gave greater representation to rural areas due to districting decisions in the absence of “one person, one vote” and because machine-controlled cities could more easily mobilize voters. Many big special interests supported it as well.) William Randolph Hearst famously hired muckraking journalist David Graham Phillips to write an expose, “The Treason of the Senate,” which played a major role in debates around the Seventeenth Amendment. The popular perception that Senate seats could be bought in backrooms of state legislatures fueled support for direct elections. Further, several Senate seats remained open for years when state legislatures couldn’t agree on a choice, although the importance of this is somewhat questionable and was attributable to a federal statute that required that Senators be elected by a majority of state legislators, not a plurality, in state legislatures, a requirement that notably was not included for popular elections in the Seventeenth Amendment.

Further, supporters of the Amendment argued that races for Senate swamped interest in state issues in state legislative races, reducing the accountability of state legislatures on any issue other than the identity of Senators. (See David Schleicher’s individual explainer on the Seventeenth Amendment.)

In 1791 the state legislatures ran the United States Senate, but the 17th Amendment passed in 1913, reversed the power of the states, removing their control over Washington and creating two separate and redundant Houses of the People..

With no guidance by the legislatures, Congress has a misdirected role, duplicating functions the Constitution had given to the states. Gun regulation should be a federal issue whenever it involves  the movement of guns between states, sale of a gun to a non-resident, or when the separate state legislatures see need for a uniform law,.  A Senate not answerable to the state legislators will pass bills to please their constituents, duplicating House bills and negating more relevant laws passed by the separate states.

The 17th Amendment did more than increase the role of the federal government.  It fundamentally changed the Constitution because it ended the states legislative role in Washington. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures’ power to appoint (and remove) U.S. Senators.  The 17th Amendment eliminated the checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. As John MacMullin has pointed out, the change imposed by the 17th amendment dealt a fatal blow to full representation by the states in shaping federal policy.

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority the Supreme Court recognized that the seventeenth amendment, which provides for the popular election of Senators, may have diminished the influence that state governments have over the federal political process and, thereby, the effectiveness of the states’ role in that process.

With respect to states’ rights, it should be readily apparent to all, that state governments cannot exert any meaningful influence or control over the federal government, judiciary, or any other federal institution. At the present time, there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. It also results in a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and the evaporation of state influence over national policy.

The seventeenth amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately altered the balance of power. Instead, the 17th Amendment should have fixed the procedural problems and left the balance of power between the states and the federal government intact.

There were two major arguments to justifying the ratification of the 17th Amendment. The first presumed the election process for Senators had become too corrupt. The second hinged on state legislature voting deadlocks resulting in delays for state representation in the Senate. A third minor factor presumed state legislatures were consumed with selecting a Senator.

Todd Zywicki in his outstanding review of the 17th Amendment for the Cleveland State Law Review echoes the current analysis challenging the validity of these arguments. He summarized the majority of evidence concluding: “…there is no indication that the shift to direct elections did anything to eliminate or even reduce corruption in Senate elections.”  “…Deadlocks were exceptional…the great majority of Senate elections were conducted without incident.” and “…the truth was that most legislatures took one vote at the beginning of each day and continued with their normal affairs.”

The Anti-Federalist Papers informs us that James Wilson stated “…one branch of the General Government, the Senate or second branch, was to be appointed by the State Legislatures. The State Legislatures, therefore, by this participation in the General Government would have an opportunity of defending their rights.”  James Madison, in the Federalist Papers confirms this view that “The Senate on the other hand will derive its power from the States…”

Zywicki further clarified that “By making the House and Senate accountable to different constituencies, the Framers [of the constitution] sought to thwart special interest…or ‘fractions,’ to pervert the legislative process…”

These are the same factions that George Washington cautioned the country against in his Farewell address: “…faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction…”

Zywicki continues with “One important consequence of the shift to direct elections was to increase the need for money and organization to run expensive state-wide races … this has required Senators to supplicate themselves to special interests in the quest for money and power…Changing the method by which the Senate was elected undermined the check that bicameralism provided against special interest legislation.”

Zywicki quotes various scholars developing this position:

  • Jonathan Elliott: “Bicameralism … provided a heightened check against special interest legislation…”
  • Robert Higgs: “…tendency for interest groups of all kinds to demand that the government transfer wealth to them.”
  • H. Hoebeke: “There is widespread recognition in the literature that one important effect of the seventeenth Amendment has been to increase the role of political organization and money in the election of Senators.”
  • Terry Smith: “…money now dominates Senate Races.”
  • Vikram David Amar: “…to raise large amounts of money to campaign for many votes facilitated private interest group access to the federal government.”
  • Jay Bybee: “…the Seventeenth Amendment destroyed the systems of federalism and bicameralism which had previously checked expansionist federal activity.”

Can we assume from these assessments that the formation of election committees to receive political contributions coupled with the power of the political parties has removed the partisanship and corruption from the election of a Senator? Or can we assume that these factors have aggravated corruption and party politics in the election of a Senator?

So what could the repeal of the 17th Amendment mean? Senators would no longer

have election committees which would limit the ability of special interest groups to contribute to the candidate’s bid for the office of Senator. Senators would no longer be bound by allegiances to these special interests. Candidates would not be obliged to receive funding from political parties for their nonexistent campaign limiting a Senator’s obligation to the national political party. Senators would be more obligated to serve the interests of their State, not without its own political intrigue, rather than a national political party or special interests.

Is it time to repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the concept of Bicameralism, two branches of the legislature “accountable to different constituencies” that “the Framers sought to thwart special interest…or ‘fractions’” from perverting “the legislative process”?

Was the 17th Amendment Ratified?

If Bill Benson had not given up two years of his life to root out the official state and federal documents, we would never have known that both the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were never properly ratified. For uncovering this monstrous tragedy for our country, Bill endured prison and endless hounding and prosecution by “our” government. His wife stood by his side for almost three decades of this injustice and suffered as she watched her husband flogged near to death by “our” government.

Devvy Kidd assembled the following based on the research she did along with Bill:

All of these official documents were obtained in person in Washington, DC, from the National Archives. I was accompanied by two dear friends, Dane von Breichenruchardt, President, Bill of Rights Foundation, Washington, DC, and my other friend who wishes to remain anonymous. He is considered a ‘master’ researcher because of his experience doing research at the National Archives. I am truly grateful for their help in gathering these documents and to the sponsors of my trip.

Dane and my other friend can verify we were given the run around during the collection of some documents. We asked for everything on the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. Every document no matter if it was a letter, vote, copy of the resolution. We were told the rolls of microfilm in the archives contained ALL records.

I believe I did not get all I requested, either because they are no longer there or I was not meant to receive them. We were there several days; ample time for collection. All of these documents were on microfilm and copied by all of us at some point. They were copied in order off the microfilm and we were very careful not to skip any pages.

On March 31, 2009, we had a very short meeting with Congressman Ron Paul; the first and only time I have ever spoken with him. While our meeting was not about the Seventeenth Amendment, the issue of looting of documents from our precious National Archives came up. Ron Paul is aware of what has been going on; no more comment on that right now. This sickens me. The documents in the people’s archives are originals and can never be replaced. They are our history.

If at all possible and you live near your state capitol, I hope you can visit and get court certified, every document they have on the vote and any correspondence from your state to Washington, DC on the Seventeenth Amendment — before more documents disappear. See link at bottom on the thief, Sandy Berger.

If you are a state legislator, please do everything in your official capacity to make your state archives produce all documents relating to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment by your state. I do not exaggerate when I say there is a high probability that some are already missing and we don’t want more to vanish.

Many states were not in session at the time the Seventeenth Amendment was submitted. No Action was taken by some legislatures which begs the legal question:

If a state legislature was out of session at the time the voting process was underway, do they lose their equal right to representation due to actions by Congress beyond their control? I believe this is a KEY legal issue that must be addressed by the states; see:

Full text of “Constitution Jefferson’s Manual And Rules Of the House Of Representatives Of The United States Eighty Seventh Congress”

http://www.archive.org/stream/constitutionjeff014670mbp/constitutionjeff014670mbp_djvu.txt

“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.

“Question has arisen as to the power of a State to recall its assent to a constitutional amendment (V. 7042).”

Since several states were out of session at the time of the vote, have they been deprived of equal Suffrage in the U.S. Senate because they did not participate in the ratification of this amendment? Is fraud (non ratification) enough to allow a state to declare it null and void in their state?

No Action taken: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware. No record for Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington State.

That Amendment was processed by Philander Chase Knox, Secretary of State in 1912, and then by his successor, William Jennings Bryan. I provide that just to clear up any confusion looking through the documents. The page numbers I refer to are ones I put on each page to avoid getting the documents mixed up since there are 239 of them.

From the official documents:

Department of State — Office of the Solicitor — Memorandum
June 2, 1913 — See page 17, 24 & 25

List of Errors in Resolutions of State Legislatures

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Page 26: “…the Executive branch* of the Government ruled that these errors were immaterial to the adoption of the amendment, it is clear that the procedure in which may be properly followed in proclaiming the adoption of the proposed amendment — that is to say, that the Secretary of State may disregard the errors contained in the certified copies of the Resolution of the Legislatures acting affirmatively on the proposed amendment.” (Italics mine)

* No conflict of interest there!

Please note on page 27:

“It is believed that this meets fully the requirement with reference to receipt of “official notice” contained in Section 205, Revised Statutes of the United States (quoted supra page 2) and that Minnesota should therefore be numbered with the States ratifying the amendment.”

This will come into play regarding the legal research courtesy of constitutional Attorney Larry Becraft below.

William Jennings Bryan declared the Seventeenth Amendment ratified at 11:00 am, May 31, 1913, by proclamation.

Before we go state by state, let me point this out:

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Page 12:

AMENDMENT [XVII.] 9

House, 48 Cong. Rec. (62d Cong., 2d Sess.) 6367, having previously passed the Senate on June 12, 1911. 47 Cong. Rec. (62d Cong., 1st Sess.) 1925. It appears officially in 37 Stat. 646. Ratification was completed on April 8, 1913, when the thirty—sixth State (Connecticut) approved the amendment, there being then 48 States in the Union. On May 31, 1913, Secretary of State Bryan certified that it had become a part of the Constitution. 38 Stat 2049.

The amendment was declared ratified on April 8, 1913

According to the official documents from the National Archives, Arkansas ratified April 14, 1913; Connecticut ratified April 15, 1913; Wisconsin ratified May 9, 1913.

How is it the ratification process could be completed April 8, 1913, when three states didn’t vote until after that date?

The certified documents from the Secretary of State, Louisiana, states by the “Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana for the year 1914, approved June 11, 1914.”

The states of the Union must force a showdown. They can appoint two U.S. Senators and send them to Washington. That would force a constitutional showdown. They can sue the government and go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. No path is going to be easy because of something called an enrolled bill.

Constitutional Attorney Larry Becraft represented Bill Benson in a lawsuit over the Sixteenth Amendment in the State of Oklahoma in 2001. For additional information on that lawsuit, see Inside Oklahoma’s 16th Amendment lawsuit.

Click here to read SHORT EXPOSITION RE LAW OF RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS on Larry’s web site. This is a lengthy and somewhat complicated document. HOWEVER, we must understand all the legal minefields and court rulings from the past. That legal research will be invaluable for state legislators and their legal staff.

Going state by state from the archives:

Alabama — No Action. Alabama was out of session until January 1915

Arizona — various errors in typographical print and one word added. Declared ratified.

Arkansas — Declared Ratified. Missing:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution providing that Senators shall be elected by the people of the several States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two—thirds of each House concurring therein).

That language is in the official submission to the states.

California — Declared ratified; text full of errors. Omitted last paragraph of the amendment!

Let’s deal with this mess. Bryan’s documents show ratified January 28, 1913; pg 43.

However, in June 2002, I personally retrieved a number of documents from the California State Archives. Many don’t know that Bill Benson, who researched the Sixteenth Amendment did the Seventeenth at the same time. This type of research requires cross checking between documents in the National Archives and each state archives individually.

They are scanned with the rest, but you will see these exhibits relating to the Seventeenth (click here):

  1. Letter from the office of March Fong Eu, Secretary of State, California dated November 23, 1981. The archivist could find no record of any debate or the vote for the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. NO RECORD OF THE VOTE.
  2. The second document is Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5, January 20, 1913, regarding the Seventeenth Amendment. These documents I personally retreived from the State Archives in California. That J.R. is only 8 days before U.S. Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan declares it ratified by California. There were no fax machines, email or overnight mail. It is impossible to believe that their assembly and senate could have voted and transmitted the documents within eight days to Washington DC in the dead of winter. Besides the all important detail: No record of any debate or vote exists.
  3. The next document is titled Engrossed Constitutional Amendment — Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 92, dated April 23, 1913.

Now, this is very important. Right below is the link to several pages cited above. You’ve looked at the letter from March Fong Yu, former Secretary of State of California: no record of debate or vote on the Seventeenth Amendment. Yet, the second document dated January 20, 1913 declares the state ratified it.

Scroll down to page five — this is another document I personally obtained at the California State Archives. I believe Bill Benson and constitutional attorney Larry Becraft also have them. Note the date on this Assembly Final History dated April 23, 1913, four months after California allegedly ratified the amendment.

Go down to the next page of the Assembly Final History and see item 7 dated Jan 20, 1913: The Amendment was read, sent to printer and by May 11, 1913, gone from committee with NO recommendation.

How is all this possible if William Jennings Bryan declared it ratified on January 28, 1913?

These images are here.

Now, in File 2, which contains all documents I retrieved, see page 20. Secretary Bryan says 36 states have taken action purporting to ratify the amendment and no official information has been received from any State to the effect that the Legislature of that state has rejected the said amendment. That document is dated June 2, 1913, three days after William Jennings Bryan declared the Seventeenth Amendment ratified (May 31, 1913).

Colorado — Punctuation errors as well as typos. Declared Ratified.

Connecticut — Missing italics as in the original submission from DC. Declared ratified.

Delaware — Letter from the Delaware Secretary of State took no action.

Florida — No Action; see letter from Governor Trammell.

Georgia — No Action.

I highly encourage every state legislator to read the Report of Committee and Resolutions Adopted by the General Assembly of Georgia Relative to the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Providing for the Election of United States Senators by the People. Pgs 85 —97.

That report was signed by the Committee on behalf of their Senate, House, the Speaker of the House, Clerk of the House, President of the Senate. Those individuals fully understood what would happen to the State of Georgia if that amendment passed: they would lose their right of suffrage. Too bad we don’t have statesmen like that serving in our Congress for decades.

Idaho — Bryan’s documents show ratified January 31, 1913. Idaho’s official document with seal shows the house passed January 23, 1913, the senate January 31, 1913 and signed off on February 7, 1913

Many typos and punctuation errors. Declared Ratified.

Illinois — Declared Ratified. Ditto.

Indiana — Declared Ratified. Ditto.

Iowa — Declared Ratified. Ditto.

Kansas — Declared Ratified. Ditto.

Kentucky — No Action. Kentucky was out of session until 1914.

Louisiana — Page 143: Ratification. Punctuation errors.

Official List of states which allegedly ratified, pg 43 does not list Louisiana.

Page 44 lists Louisiana ratified June 11, 1914

However, U.S. Secretary of State declared the amendment ratified on May 31, 1913.

Maine — Declared Ratified. Many typos and punctuation errors.

Maryland — No Action taken per their Secretary of State.

Massachusetts — Declared Ratified. Many typos and punctuation errors.

Michigan — Declared Ratified. Ditto.

Minnesota — Declared Ratified. However, there were but a few documents from the National Archives for that state; none show the amendment that was allegedly voted on by their legislature.

Missouri — Declared Ratified. That record is all in long hand. The sealed document from the Secretary of State declares it approved, dated April 14, 1913. The official archive document (pg. 43) says March 7, 1913. No other documents for that state.

Montana — Declared Ratified. Words changed, punctuation.

Nebraska — Declared Ratified. Words added, punctuation

The Governor signed off on the vote ratifying by their legislature on March 27, 1913.

The Official DC documents show Nebraska ratified it on February 5, 1913.

Nevada — Declared Ratified. Punctuation.

New Hampshire — Declared Ratified. All the usual punctuation and errors of italics. One paragraph appears to be not conformed.

New Jersey — Declared Ratified. Some different text, word changes and usual errors. Pages are missing.

New Mexico — Declared Ratified. Page missing.

New York — Declared Ratified. One paragraph has different text. Certification shows only their assembly voted for it; no mention of their senate.

North Dakota — Declared Ratified. Only shows house bill; no mention of vote by the senate.

Ohio — Declared Ratified. Usual errors. Missing paragraph. HJR 3 is for the House. No version of Senate shown, both allegedly voted yea.

Oklahoma — Declared Ratified. Missing a paragraph.

Oregon — Declared Ratified. No records on micro film.

Pennsylvania — Declared Ratified. Paperwork a mess.

Rhode Island — Not on Archives official list. No records on microfilm.

South Carolina — Not listed on archives list of ratified states. No documents on microfilm.

South Dakota — Declared Ratified. Usual errors. No records on micro film.

Tennessee — Declared Ratified. Paperwork a mess; had to use a search engine to find the state matching the governor.

Texas — Declared Ratified. Paragraph changes. Usual errors. Had to use search engine to find Secretary of State and the governor.

Vermont — Declared Ratified. No records on microfilm.

Washington — Declared Ratified. No records on microfilm.

West Virginia — Declared Ratified. Different text, first paragraph. Usual errors. Lack of paperwork.

Wisconsin — Declared Ratified. Usual errors and change in text. Lack of paperwork.

However, in Bill Benson’s book (see link at bottom), he has a letter dated May 3, 1913, written by John B. Moore, Assistant Secretary of State to His Excellency, the Governor of Wisconsin. In this letter he says, “A comparison of the last mentioned Resolution with the one passed [emphasis mine] by the Wisconsin Legislature shows that certain clauses and paragraphs have been added in the later Resolution which were not contained in the Resolution passed by Congress.”

Besides the fact this proves there was no conformity to the language for passage, note the date: May 3, 1913. According to the official documents, pg 43, Wisconsin’s legislature ratified on May 9, 1913 — six days later. Wait! In the Benson documents is a letter dated May 5, 1913, from Governor Francis McGovern which states he acknowledges Moore’s letter and the error in ratification (meaning it was no good). McGovern states he is transmitting copies of Moore’s letter to the both branches of his legislature.

No other documentation showing another vote was taken.

Wyoming — Declared Ratified. Paperwork missing.

Total: 36 States. 48 states belonged to the Union at that time.

No Action: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland.

Some of the states are not on microfilm in DC. They would be sandwiched between other states and should have been on the rolls: Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington State.

Those documents (239 pages) I collected were court certified by the Archivist. I photographed them with the seal, but in order to go through them page by page, I had to cut the seal and the ‘button’s which bundled them. Those photos are here. (Also this link)

The file containing all the documents for the states above, click here.

(Please understand the file above is 68.76MB. That means it takes a few minutes to load, even with DSL. It takes longer on my system (and I have high speed) to load in FireFox than Explorer. It will also load in Netscape, but takes about five full minutes. I just want you to know it is there, it just takes some time to load such a huge file.)

Please feel free to download this page and the files onto a CD and get it to your state legislator with a cover letter. I would start with those legislators who voted for the Tenth Amendment Resolution in their state or supported one that didn’t make it out of committee. That list is here. If you live in the State of Pennsylvania, please add these state reps:

Rohrer, Baker, Barrar, Bear, Benninghoff, Boyd, Brooks, Clymer, Cox, Creighton, Cutler, Denlinger, Ellis, Fleck, Gabig, Gabler, Geist, Gibbons, Gingrich, Goodman, Grell, Grove, Harris, Hutchinson, Kauffman, Marisco, Metcalfe, Metzgar, Micozzie, Miller, Moul, Mustio, Oberlander, Payne, Perry, Phillips, Pyle, Quigley, Rapp, Reese, Reichley, Roae, Rock, Saylor, Schroder, Sonney, Stern, Stevenson, Swanger, Tallman, True, Turzai, Marshall, Grucela, Delozier, M. Keller, Vulkovich, Hickernell, Krieger, Mensch, S. H. Smith and Murt

Why the Seventeenth Amendment can’t be repealed

I don’t have the list at this time for Wyoming which just passed a Tenth Amendment Resolution; signed by their governor last week.

Three horrendous things happened in 1913 and yes, it was a conspiracy.

  1. The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was declared ratified. The income tax amendment. It clearly was not.
  2. The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was declared ratified. It clearly was not.
  3. The unconstitutional Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913 was passed.

The income tax amendment was critical. It was needed to feed the privately owned consortium of banks called the FED. The Seventeenth Amendment was critical to remove the right of the states of the Union to equal representation in the U.S. Senate. Henceforth, those seats were up for the highest bidder.

The states are stomped on. The American people are bled to death via heavy progressive taxation and those fruits of our labor go into the coffers of an international and domestic banking cartel draining the lifeblood of this country and our people.

It was a conspiracy. A provable conspiracy: The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin.

Griffin’s book is a factual account of the secret meetings at Jekyll Island between powerful bankers to seize and control the monetary system of our country. They were aided and abetted by rotten, corrupt senators who got the bill pushed through. You can watch an interview with G. Edward Griffin on the “FED” here.

“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized….the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.” — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr.

“From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.” — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.

“The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money” — Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.

Lindbergh’s book, Banking and Currency and The Money Trust is available free on line.

Supporting documentation and publications:

Sources:

See Also: