It seems so. Either that, or we’re being deliberately miseducated about them. The following “tweet,” by a legacy media functionary, is what’s currently stuck in my craw:
[The tweet image above was provided by Mike Hendrix.]
It’s possible that this...person has no agenda. As he works for NBC, that’s dubious, but we must allow for the possibility. But do you think he’s ever read the Constitution of the United States?
ARTICLE V: 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. [Emphasis added, as the Framers knew very little HTML]
The presence of that clause in Article V, the Amendment Article, excludes the equal representation of the states in the Senate from the possibility of amendment. This is beyond dispute. The Senate, in other words, was created to guarantee that each state would have a voice in the Senate equal to any other state. The electoral system for choosing a president reinforces this oft-neglected aspect of the Constitution: it was intended to protect the small states from abuses perpetrated by the large ones.
The phrase “checks and balances” should come to mind at this point. My Gentle Readers have no doubt been muttering that phrase for some time already. Lesser intellects might consider suing their civics teachers.
The Framers knew full well what they were doing. The very last passage of the Constitution emphasizes the importance of the states as elements in the Constitutional design:
ARTICLE VII: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The Constitution was conceived and ratified as a compact among the states. The states retained nearly complete internal sovereignty. Their equal representation in the Senate was intended, in part, to preserve that sovereignty, the exclusions in Article I, Section 10 being the sole exceptions. This aspect of the Constitution’s design is sometimes cited as an argument for a state’s power to nullify federal laws on the grounds of federal overreach.
The federal government has done many unConstitutional and extra-Constitutional things since the Wilson Administration. Some of them have been undeniable encroachments on state sovereignty. (Where, for example, is Congress given the power to legislate a federal penal code? But that’s a subject for another day.) This latest talk – of amending a part of the Constitution explicitly protected against amendment! — merely indicates how far Americans’ knowledge of the deliberately designed-in features of our Union has slipped.
Perhaps I should hold classes.
11 comments:
You seem to not understand that not one word in the Constitution means a pig's ass to any leftist. Once you understand that the complete and total annihilation of the left becomes a clear necessity.
Oh believe me, John, I understand that completely. But the idea that they can spout drivel baldly contradictory to the explicit text of the Constitution, yet not be immediately dismissed by millions of viewers or readers, still frosts my buns. Americans ought to understand their own nation's basis far better than they do.
Certainly an NBC "journalist" should!!
Of course, bear in mind that, when the Framers stuck that clause into Article V, they were also operating under the assumption that the Senators actually represented the several States, being chosen by the legislatures thereof to serve. This is no longer the case, thanks to the Seventeenth Amendment.
Liberals would probably argue that this is reason to ignore or remove that clause of Article V. I say it's further evidence that the Seventeenth was a change that needs to be "reverted in source control."
Indeed, Amy. The election of U.S. Senators by state legislatures was intended to impose a further degree of indirection between federal legislation and popular passions -- what was then called "faction" by James Madison among others. But that, too, is a detail few contemporary Americans are aware of. Chalk it up to today's strange, faddish pseudo-worship of "democracy:" yet another chimera the Framers wanted to keep at arm's length.
Thank you professor. As one who has figuratively given classes on the poison pill hidden in the Constitution's treaty clause, I'm appalled I had not noticed this gem. Perhaps because no low-life SSM apparatchik (forget "should" John C as they've worn out their flimsy cover of journalistic oversight) had recently dared suggest abrogating it in addition to eliminating the Electoral College.
However, so much incremental nibbling on the Constitution has done so much damage that it would be a major turnabout would this provision you've illuminated be effectively defended from this trial balloon threat.
May you ever be thanked Fran for shedding light on the obscure and forgotten. While you still may, please do it often.
I would agree with you, Amy. It's way past time to repeal the 17th. As far as what contemporary Americans "know", I chalk it up to the insidious infiltration of socialists and communists in the "education" field from pre school to post grad. It's no secret. Kids are taught to hate America and the Constitution as racist creations of white, male Christians to subjugate every other race and of course the female sex. I figure with a million Jewish lawyers spending their entire careers deconstructing the Constitution, banning Christianity and defaming everything white, European and historical facts it's only a matter of time till America disintegrates.
The trouble is, Leftists just cannot imagine that they, and their like, will not be slithering around in the background, in actuality - if not by law - controlling everything. They do believe themselves ordained by Destiny to rule over all others, because they are so educated and cultivated by the Elite for that purpose.
It never occurs to them that the Proles might have some ideas, wants, and plans of their own.
Thank you so much for pointing out this Constitutional fact.
Yes, you should.
Fran:
The 17th amendment amounts to a coup against the States that created the Constitution, and the damage done thereby, both direct and indirect, has been bad, no doubt, but the damage wrought by the 17th pales next to the damage done by these:
1) Establishment of the Federal Reserve;
2) Establishment of the income tax;
3) Central government control of the schools.
The first two taken together ensure that these presently united States will be encouraged to live beyond our means, with the virtual certainty of an economic crash, while the third ensures the inability of the general populace to recognize what is being done to them.
See my post on this subject:
https://libertyhollow.weebly.com/home/three-strikes-or-the-three-roots-of-american-tyranny
Of even more concern, as you and I have noted, along with generations of others, is the lack of enforcement of the Constitution as it presently exists- see my articles here-
https://libertyhollow.weebly.com/home/using-the-myth-of-the-constitution-part-5-proposed-draft-of-the-constitutional-enforcement-amendment
If the Constitution is not enforceable, what matter what it says? Without enforcement, the Constitution vaunted restraint on government is a myth. A myth with power, but ultimately a myth.
Post a Comment