This is a series of videos about the controversy surrounding the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America.
If this Amendment is still in full force and effect it changes everything.
The Amendment reads as follows:
" If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept or retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them or either of them."
This series of videos is all over the YouTube website from several different channels.
Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress
You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 10,360 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. WHAT THEY WRITE IS THEIR OWN OPINION, just as what I write is my own.
Showing posts with label 13th Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 13th Amendment. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
The Missing 13th Amendment to the US Constitution and the Article V Con-Con.
You can't make this stuff up.
http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13-pen.htm
Larry Beecraft on the 13th Amendment
LAWYERS CHANGED US CONSTITUTION SO THEY COULD HOLD OFFICE
http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/becraft13.htm
What others are saying:
http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13talk.htm
http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13-fgd.htm
The pictures of the original document preserved by the State of Maryland have somehow disappeared since these web pages above were published.
The subject of throwing the whole Constitutional document open for amendment with an Article V convention is up for consideration here. If the same kind of people who did this with the 13th Amendment are allowed to control such an Article V convention (and you know they will be) what will the result be?
Instead would it not be a better idea to use the Constitutional amendment process to treat one or two issues at a time? Would it not be far safer to come up with an amendment to directly repeal the 16th Amendment, and how about the 17th Amendment that turned over the election of United States Senators to popular vote thereby destroying the representation that the States had in the Senate? Would it not be right to repeal that one also, even though it's been proven with over 15,000 certified documents that neither of these were properly ratified? (Research the book by Red Beckman and Bill Benson called "The Law That Never Was".)
Then there is the matter of the stranglehold that the Federal Reserve has on our money supply. The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and a Constitutional Amendment put in place to prevent anyone EVER outside the original Constitutional mandate (the Congress) from controlling the issuing of our currency! The Congress alone should be held responsible for ALL the money they create and spend.
Why is it necessary to open up the whole document to these lawyers? I for one don't want to give any of them a single shot at undoing the original ideas of the founders, especially the whole idea that the people themselves are sovereign, and that the States are also sovereign, and have their own jurisdiction as outlined by Antonin Scalia in the Mack/Printz decision. There is massive confusion about what the 14th Amendment actually did. Read this for an overview:
http://www.paulstramer.net/2010/03/red-amendment-how-your-freedom-was.html
The whole argument about an Article V convention has caused deep division. This is totally unnecessary since the danger can be easily solved by treating these amendments separately, thereby preserving the momentum for reform of many bad decisions by the Supreme Court over the years, while preserving the the ideas contained in the body of the Constitution and especially in the first 10 Amendments or Bill of Rights. The main idea to be preserved is that Rights come from God not man. The Constitution didn't give us any rights. It just prevented Government from interfering with rights we already had from our Creator. These are embodied in the Constitution itself and especially the Bill of Rights up to and including Amendment 10 which essentially says "if we forgot anything you can't do that either" to the government.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION. The problem is in the judiciary and their officers of the court (bar association lawyers) who are all titled with titles of nobility (Esquire etc.) where in fact the founders considered that each and every one of us are the sovereign lords of our own lives and bodies and properties. The supreme law for the United States is the Constitution. WE DON'T HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! We have God given natural rights. Only government employees have so called "constitutional rights". The US Constitution was written to delegate a very few and specific rights from our God Given Rights to some servants for very specific purposes, and nothing more. WE ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED that document TO GOVERN THE GOVERNMENT and nothing else! We, in this case are the LAWGIVER. Can a lawgiver be subject to his own law without his consent? Was the King subject to his own law without his consent? Is God Almighty subject to His own laws? Not unless he volunteers to be so subject by His own promise!
Who is the lawgiver in the case of the US Constitution? Can those public servants now claim they are sovereign over the lawgivers, We The People? Only by the twisted legaleze of the lawyers and judges who have perverted the Constitution. Read the Mack/Printz decision to find the true jurisdiction of the States and the People. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html Pay special attention to the parts about equal but separate jurisdiction of the states vs the US federal government. The fact put forth by the court is that the federal government can NOT tell the States what to do!
Here is an example of judicial tyranny. This should serve to show you the real problem:
http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/a-recipe-for-tyranny
We have a whole country full of servants who have sworn to uphold the Supreme Law and who break their oath at every turn, every day, with complete impunity. The words on the piece of paper mean absolutely NOTHING to them. They are just some words to say to get a paycheck, but the people are about fed up with this tyranny, and are searching for some remedy that doesn't include bloody violence.
THAT REMEDY IS NOT A CON-CON. That remedy is enforcing the original document!
What form should that enforcement take? That is open for discussion and I invite you to join that discussion by clicking on the comments section below and adding your thoughts.
The term CON_CON was invented decades ago when this terrible idea first reared it's ugly head. The founders never envisioned a world with instantaneous communication where mass media could pervert the minds of people to such an extent that we have now. They also said that our form of government would only work for a moral and religious people. Can we save people who are hell bent on denying any responsibility to their creator for their daily actions, or what they think? I think not, and no con-con will save them from themselves. But the Constitution was supposed to protect the good people from the democratic majority decisions of the bad. So now you know why they hate the Constitution. Now you know why Soros and the boys want it gone, and you should be very puzzled as to why people who call themselves patriots are willing to get into bed with the likes of Soros and minions on this issue.
Who is behind it all:
http://securetherepublic.com/main/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v-constitutional-convention/
More evidence that the 13th Amendment had indeed been ratified:
http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13-pen.htm
Larry Beecraft on the 13th Amendment
LAWYERS CHANGED US CONSTITUTION SO THEY COULD HOLD OFFICE
http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/becraft13.htm
What others are saying:
http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13talk.htm
http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13-fgd.htm
The pictures of the original document preserved by the State of Maryland have somehow disappeared since these web pages above were published.
The subject of throwing the whole Constitutional document open for amendment with an Article V convention is up for consideration here. If the same kind of people who did this with the 13th Amendment are allowed to control such an Article V convention (and you know they will be) what will the result be?
Instead would it not be a better idea to use the Constitutional amendment process to treat one or two issues at a time? Would it not be far safer to come up with an amendment to directly repeal the 16th Amendment, and how about the 17th Amendment that turned over the election of United States Senators to popular vote thereby destroying the representation that the States had in the Senate? Would it not be right to repeal that one also, even though it's been proven with over 15,000 certified documents that neither of these were properly ratified? (Research the book by Red Beckman and Bill Benson called "The Law That Never Was".)
Then there is the matter of the stranglehold that the Federal Reserve has on our money supply. The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and a Constitutional Amendment put in place to prevent anyone EVER outside the original Constitutional mandate (the Congress) from controlling the issuing of our currency! The Congress alone should be held responsible for ALL the money they create and spend.
Why is it necessary to open up the whole document to these lawyers? I for one don't want to give any of them a single shot at undoing the original ideas of the founders, especially the whole idea that the people themselves are sovereign, and that the States are also sovereign, and have their own jurisdiction as outlined by Antonin Scalia in the Mack/Printz decision. There is massive confusion about what the 14th Amendment actually did. Read this for an overview:
http://www.paulstramer.net/2010/03/red-amendment-how-your-freedom-was.html
The whole argument about an Article V convention has caused deep division. This is totally unnecessary since the danger can be easily solved by treating these amendments separately, thereby preserving the momentum for reform of many bad decisions by the Supreme Court over the years, while preserving the the ideas contained in the body of the Constitution and especially in the first 10 Amendments or Bill of Rights. The main idea to be preserved is that Rights come from God not man. The Constitution didn't give us any rights. It just prevented Government from interfering with rights we already had from our Creator. These are embodied in the Constitution itself and especially the Bill of Rights up to and including Amendment 10 which essentially says "if we forgot anything you can't do that either" to the government.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION. The problem is in the judiciary and their officers of the court (bar association lawyers) who are all titled with titles of nobility (Esquire etc.) where in fact the founders considered that each and every one of us are the sovereign lords of our own lives and bodies and properties. The supreme law for the United States is the Constitution. WE DON'T HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! We have God given natural rights. Only government employees have so called "constitutional rights". The US Constitution was written to delegate a very few and specific rights from our God Given Rights to some servants for very specific purposes, and nothing more. WE ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED that document TO GOVERN THE GOVERNMENT and nothing else! We, in this case are the LAWGIVER. Can a lawgiver be subject to his own law without his consent? Was the King subject to his own law without his consent? Is God Almighty subject to His own laws? Not unless he volunteers to be so subject by His own promise!
Who is the lawgiver in the case of the US Constitution? Can those public servants now claim they are sovereign over the lawgivers, We The People? Only by the twisted legaleze of the lawyers and judges who have perverted the Constitution. Read the Mack/Printz decision to find the true jurisdiction of the States and the People. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html Pay special attention to the parts about equal but separate jurisdiction of the states vs the US federal government. The fact put forth by the court is that the federal government can NOT tell the States what to do!
Here is an example of judicial tyranny. This should serve to show you the real problem:
http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/a-recipe-for-tyranny
We have a whole country full of servants who have sworn to uphold the Supreme Law and who break their oath at every turn, every day, with complete impunity. The words on the piece of paper mean absolutely NOTHING to them. They are just some words to say to get a paycheck, but the people are about fed up with this tyranny, and are searching for some remedy that doesn't include bloody violence.
THAT REMEDY IS NOT A CON-CON. That remedy is enforcing the original document!
What form should that enforcement take? That is open for discussion and I invite you to join that discussion by clicking on the comments section below and adding your thoughts.
The term CON_CON was invented decades ago when this terrible idea first reared it's ugly head. The founders never envisioned a world with instantaneous communication where mass media could pervert the minds of people to such an extent that we have now. They also said that our form of government would only work for a moral and religious people. Can we save people who are hell bent on denying any responsibility to their creator for their daily actions, or what they think? I think not, and no con-con will save them from themselves. But the Constitution was supposed to protect the good people from the democratic majority decisions of the bad. So now you know why they hate the Constitution. Now you know why Soros and the boys want it gone, and you should be very puzzled as to why people who call themselves patriots are willing to get into bed with the likes of Soros and minions on this issue.
Who is behind it all:
http://securetherepublic.com/main/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v-constitutional-convention/
More evidence that the 13th Amendment had indeed been ratified:
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/13th-amend.shtml
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
How fraudulent contracts have brought American down.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Baker
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 6:17 AM
Subject: Elkhart Sheriff Upholds Constitution
A few week ago Elkhart Sheriff Rogers appeared at a public meeting in South Bend, Indiana along with our Congresswoman Jackie Walorski and stated that he would not enforce any gun confiscation laws. That statement brought forth a lot of negative comments in the People's Forum of the Elkhart Truth newspaper along would some very good articles by supporters of his position. The absolute ignorance of many of the negative comments prompted me to write a letter to the People's Forum and it was printed June 16, 2013.
My article is printed below. Bill
Over the past month there have been a number of views express in the People's Forum both pro and con about Sheriff Rogers defending the US Constitution by refusing to enforce clearly unconstitutional gun laws. I am really disturbed by the absolute ignorance displayed by the number of opinions that oppose Sheriff's position.
The biggest concern of our founding fathers was an all powerful federal government. That's why the 2nd and 14th Amendments were added to the constitution. They are there to protect the rights of the people. Today the federal government is becoming exactly what the founding fathers feared.
The 2nd amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of the word infringed do these critics not understand. Look up infringed in the dictionary. Governments at all levels have passed laws infringing our rights concerning gun laws. All of them clearly unconstitutional and would be so declared if it were not for a politiczed and corrupt court system at all levels.
The 14th Amendment clearly states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States." This amendment is also violated on a regular basis by our state governments.
We should all be thankful that we have a Sheriff that takes seriously his oath of office. I wish those other elected officials we elect to office and courts would do the same.
Bill Baker
To: Bill Baker
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: Elkhart Sheriff Upholds Constitution
The problem is that we can not have privileges and immunities at the same time as having rights.
Either we are 14th amendment citizens with privileges and immunities granted by government, OR we are sovereigns who wrote (ordained and established) the
constitution FOR GOVERNMENT TO FOLLOW, which guards our God Given RIGHTS (which are not privileges and immunities granted by government).
Of course the people who wrote against the sheriff don't get that, and probably most of the people who wrote for him don't get it either.
That is why the corrupt courts don't allow constitutional arguments on behalf of 14th amendment citizens. They have no standing, because they gave up their
rights in trade for privileges and immunities, although not voluntarily mostly. The courts argue that once you take part in their system you have volunteered.
But before God, that was all done with fraud, deception, threat, duress, coercion, and intimidation, therefore those so called "contracts" are all null and void,
and entirely without force and effect in God's eyes, and there will definitely be a war over that at some point. These corrupt leftists, including judges, have their mind made up they will own the whole world, and if they can't own it, they will burn it to the ground.
Paul
From: Paul Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Elkhart Sheriff Upholds Constitution
Well said, my friend.
Those privileges and immunities are also called "civil rights" which come from Roman civil law. The 14th amendment and the civil rights were created to give the blacks privileges and immunities after the civil war. They were not considered state citizens so they were made U.S. government property citizens.
All the fuss over the years about "equal" civil rights the we hear from government has been not to give the black rights equal to whites but rather to make the rights of the whites equal to those of the blacks; nothing more than privileges and immunities.
Clearly their so-called contracts are fraudulent. I now believe that they are only a portion of the problem; sort of a diversion if you will. They appear to be the problem but underlying them is, I believe, the real crux of the problem. Virtually every document people fill out and complete, to vote, to buy a gun, to buy insurance, to open a bank account, to get a job, etc etc asks a question; Are you a U.S. citizen?
We voluntarily claim that status and that status is what puts people into their jurisdiction. We voluntarily claim it but it is because we define it geographically while they define it politically. The difference is tremendous and disastrous.
I am of the opinion, based on my research, that everything goes back to that status; income taxes and all of it. The U.S. was always foreign to the states so claiming U.S. citizenship changes nationality to a foreign jurisdiction rather than the nationality of birth, ie the state of birth. The 14th amendment brought jurisdication of the federal government into the states because U.S. citizens are "subject to their jurisdiction" and are "their" or "its" people.
neo
Neo:
You are correct in your conclusion about our volunteering, but it usually is unknowingly. They have deliberately hidden parts of every contract we "volunteer" into,
and that my friend is fraud, and makes the contract "unilateral". At law, a unilateral contract is always null and void. Fraudulent contracts that attempt to hide
the provisions of the contract itself are always null and void. But added to that is the fact that most of these so called contracts are pushed on the people with some kind of deception, and usually threat of prosecution or confiscation, which is coercion and intimidation at it's worst.
That additional evil force is justification for almost any retaliation on the part of the people in their own defense, as it usually removes their very means to their own livelihood or their own life itself in some cases. God is not mocked forever, and he keeps perfect records of every one of these evil actions against the people.
Like I said, at some point there is going to be a war over these issues. Many people now believe that all this was done unlawfully, even though there was the appearance of legislation, because it was done OUTSIDE the supreme law. One great example is the so called "income tax" or 16th amendment, which was never ratified. See http://www.paulstramer.net/2013/05/red-beckman-speaks-4.html
If, in fact it was never a law, how much does THAT one scream to high heaven for vengeance?
Then there is the big lie that Obama was eligible to be a president, and we haven't touched the 17th Amendment, the 14th Amendment (who actually voted for it) and the 13th Amendment.
There is a lot wrong with our country, and one of the worst problems is that many judges KNOW ALL THIS and perpetuate it day after day, and never are any of them ever brought to justice for their crimes.
My fear is that sooner or later, before we can get a handle on all this, they are going to persecute someone who is not as level headed as you and I, and that person is going to erupt into horrible violence, which will be used by the left to start the martial law war against the people.
I hope and pray we can stop all this with education and a renewal of the principles in Dr. Edwin Vieira's book "The Sword and Sovereignty" before that happens.
But I am slowly losing the conviction that it can be stopped short of a complete and utter collapse, and extreme suffering.
God have Mercy on us.
Paul Stramer KC7MEZ
Eureka Montana
Get "The Sword and Sovereignty" here:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sword-Sovereignty-Constitutional-Principles/dp/0967175941/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371669607&sr=8-1&keywords=the+sword+and+sovereignty
Get "The Sword and Sovereignty" here:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sword-Sovereignty-Constitutional-Principles/dp/0967175941/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371669607&sr=8-1&keywords=the+sword+and+sovereignty
I agree completely. If there was ever truly hope of changing things
and resolving the issues peacefully, I suspect they are slipping away from us
rapidly now. Back about 3 years ago my suspicions were that it would not be
resolved without much bloodshed and loss of life. Like you I have tried to
inform and educate all I could because I saw knowledge and truth as our last and
best hope of curbing a violent outbreak.
There
are too many instances of abusive behavior being exhibited by authorities around
the country and, as you say, sooner or later there will one incident too many or
in the wrong place at the wrong time. God help us when it comes
unglued.
neo
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Missing 13th Amendment - "TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"
Corruption is old and entreched. This fraud was done durring the Civil War. You won't believe what you are about to discover, but it's absolutely true and documented. Just follow the links below the article and you will see that evil has been at work on our founding documents for a very long time.
David Dodge, Researcher
Alfred Adask, Editor
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Emphasis added.}
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-02.html
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-03.html
David Dodge, Researcher
Alfred Adask, Editor
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Emphasis added.}
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-02.html
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-03.html
Thursday, December 17, 2009
THE INCOME TAX -"THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS"
And THE THREE 13TH AMENDMENTS
By Jon Christian Ryter
December 17, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
There are two amendments which appear in the US Constitution that were fraudulently declared ratified by then Secretary of State Philander P. Knox and US Solicitor General Joshua Reuben Clark. They are the 16th and 17th Amendments to the US Constitution. The JP Morgan-Rockefeller-Rothschild international banking cartel (which actually encompasses about 100 of the wealthiest families in the world) swapped New Jersey Gov. Thomas Woodrow Wilson the White House for their own private central bank. In doing so, they perpetuated the fraud on the people of the United States. To make a central bank viable, the bankers needed to be able to levy the incomes of the people of the United States. To do that, they needed Congress to enact a federal income tax. There was only one problem with that. Assessing an unapportioned tax (that unfairly and punitively targets one citizen over another) was specifically prohibited by the Constitution. The bankers needed a constitutional amendment to correct Article 1 § 8. The bankers had one other problem with this plan. Every attempt to create a permanent central bank or, for that matter, a new temporary one, met fierce resistance from the States and from State banks. To get a constitutional resolution through Congress, it would first be necessary to remove the States from the equation of governance at the federal level. The 17th Amendment did that.
Now before we go any farther, stop for a minute and ask yourself a question. But first, let's set the scene so when we frame the question, you have a true understanding of how our government was originally set up, and why it worked so well until 1913. The year is 1907. It had been 120 years since a confederation of sovereign States formed a nation. The States designated, through a Constitution, that a Chief Executive would be elected every four years who would represent them—the States—and their interests before the nations of the world. (Keep in mind, many times the interests of the States differ from those of the people who, separately, would be represented by the House of Representatives). The States, the People and the Executive would be co-equal and, jointly, those three bodies would rule the nation. That's what made the United States of America a Republic. Representing the interests of each State were two Senators, giving each State—regardless of its size—equal stature in the Senate chamber. Between the two bodies, the Senate is more powerful since Senators serve terms three times as long as the Representatives. Add this final picture to your thought processes. You are a governor, a State Senator or a State representative or assemblyman. You—not the people—have been electing your US Senators for 120 years. They work you, not the people. You elect the President of the United States, since he works for you. Not the people. Okay. You now have the picture.
(These two articles are one of the best history lessons I have seen to date. PS)
Read this very scholarly article here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon306.htm
and part 2 here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon307.htm
By Jon Christian Ryter
December 17, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
There are two amendments which appear in the US Constitution that were fraudulently declared ratified by then Secretary of State Philander P. Knox and US Solicitor General Joshua Reuben Clark. They are the 16th and 17th Amendments to the US Constitution. The JP Morgan-Rockefeller-Rothschild international banking cartel (which actually encompasses about 100 of the wealthiest families in the world) swapped New Jersey Gov. Thomas Woodrow Wilson the White House for their own private central bank. In doing so, they perpetuated the fraud on the people of the United States. To make a central bank viable, the bankers needed to be able to levy the incomes of the people of the United States. To do that, they needed Congress to enact a federal income tax. There was only one problem with that. Assessing an unapportioned tax (that unfairly and punitively targets one citizen over another) was specifically prohibited by the Constitution. The bankers needed a constitutional amendment to correct Article 1 § 8. The bankers had one other problem with this plan. Every attempt to create a permanent central bank or, for that matter, a new temporary one, met fierce resistance from the States and from State banks. To get a constitutional resolution through Congress, it would first be necessary to remove the States from the equation of governance at the federal level. The 17th Amendment did that.
Now before we go any farther, stop for a minute and ask yourself a question. But first, let's set the scene so when we frame the question, you have a true understanding of how our government was originally set up, and why it worked so well until 1913. The year is 1907. It had been 120 years since a confederation of sovereign States formed a nation. The States designated, through a Constitution, that a Chief Executive would be elected every four years who would represent them—the States—and their interests before the nations of the world. (Keep in mind, many times the interests of the States differ from those of the people who, separately, would be represented by the House of Representatives). The States, the People and the Executive would be co-equal and, jointly, those three bodies would rule the nation. That's what made the United States of America a Republic. Representing the interests of each State were two Senators, giving each State—regardless of its size—equal stature in the Senate chamber. Between the two bodies, the Senate is more powerful since Senators serve terms three times as long as the Representatives. Add this final picture to your thought processes. You are a governor, a State Senator or a State representative or assemblyman. You—not the people—have been electing your US Senators for 120 years. They work you, not the people. You elect the President of the United States, since he works for you. Not the people. Okay. You now have the picture.
(These two articles are one of the best history lessons I have seen to date. PS)
Read this very scholarly article here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon306.htm
and part 2 here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon307.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)