Summary
➡ The text discusses the U.S. constitutional provisions regarding state defense, asserting that states have the right to protect themselves from invasions or imminent threats, even if the federal government fails to do so. It emphasizes the sovereignty of states and their ability to handle their internal affairs unless they request federal assistance.
➡ The amendment process, as detailed in Article Five of the Constitution, offers two ways to propose amendments: through Congress with two-thirds of both houses deeming it necessary, or through the application of legislatures of two-thirds of several states. This proposed amendment becomes a part of the Constitution if ratified by three-fourths of several state legislatures or conventions. Conversely, concerns exist about conventions of states, fearing the potential for unwanted forces to dominate them and rewrite the Constitution. However, this process is also viewed as an essential mechanism to propose necessary amendments that Congress may never broach.
➡ The speaker urges listeners to understand both paths to amending the Constitution – either by two-thirds of each house proposing an amendment or two-thirds of states proposing an amendment. They highlight potential risks, advocate for a diversity of strategies like nullification and constitutional conventions, and importantly, explore the interpretation of Article five and the 17th amendment, suggesting some states may not have to abide by amendments they never ratified.
➡ The text discusses the perceived illegality of the 17th Amendment, arguing that states were forced to lose their suffrage without consent and the proposed amendment by Congress violated a clause preventing them from changing the selection process of senators. The author also highlights their efforts and challenges in getting the Utah state legislature involved in the matter, mentions personal anecdotes including a sick cat, and ends with a request for financial support for their radio shows and potential trips.
Transcript
And then I exited it, ended that stream, and then found where I need to be. Oh, no. Which one did you do? Did you do the one that’s Tuesdays with Mike shit. So I got to redo that one. All right. Yeah. That’s what you sent me the link to. All right, I’ve got to go back. Go ahead and do the class because I got to redo that one.
All right, I’ll be back. No problem. All right, welcome to everybody. I am Douglas v. Gibbs. Mr. Constitution. And fun, fun things happen. Technical, whatever. I started talking on the other one, realized that’s not the right place. Came over here. So here we go. And so before we get started on article four and article five, what I was starting to explain on the other live thing, and now I’m in the right live place.
Hello, P. Brockman. So I’m watching the chat. I’m in the right place. Hopefully you’re in the right place. And if not, we’ll figure it out. And it’s just a quick, short technical difficulty. But anyway, so prior to this program, and let me say this, I am taking this week and next week off and the following week when it comes to my constitution classes live in person. This is the only constitution class I’m doing this week.
And knowing that is the only thing I’m doing, I actually set myself a reminder because I knew I’d forget about it because I’m outside my routine. And so at about 03:00 I have a little alarm go off my phone. Oh, yeah, I do that show in about an hour. And so that’s when I sent out the email. So for those of you who expect the emails much sooner, that’s why.
But anyway, so during the hour I was waiting, one of my students in a chino class sent me a video link to a video. And I think it’s like an hour and 47 minutes worth of Senator John Kennedy asking judges who are nominated by the Biden, by Biden questions about the Constitution and various other little questions. And I’m telling you, if you want to be entertained, that’s the thing to watch.
And it was entertaining. What I mean by that is these judges. Well, and one of them I’m sure you’ve seen before. He says, so, judge, what is article five about? And she says, well, you know, it doesn’t come to me right now. I don’t know. He says, well, what is article two about in the Constitution? She says, well, judge, that’s like a mechanic wanting to get a job and his potential boss saying, so what is a caliper? The answer doesn’t come to mind right now.
I’m not sure. Okay, what’s a brake pad? You know, right now it’s just not coming to mind. But you’re interviewing for a job, to be a mechanic, to do brakes and things like that. These judges, the Constitution, supreme law of the land, the foundation of law in this country. And yet, basic questions. What is article five? I don’t know. By the way, it’s the amendment process, which we’re going to go over today after I finish tail end of article four.
What’s article two? I don’t know what establishes the executive branch. And there’s a few other questions. But anyway, so it was entertaining. So ever you can come across any videos of Senator Kennedy questioning these judicial nominees. It is entertaining. It is, for lack of a better way of putting it, a good time for all in the sense of entertainment, but a sad time for all when you realize these are the people are going to be on the bench.
All right, that all said where we left off last time. And one other thing before I get kicking in. So one nice thing about having some time off is I am able to do some more writing than I usually do. And I’ve written some really good articles. So politicalpistachio. com, matter of fact, I just wrote one today about January 6, antifa, because I came across some old information that I had on my old blog that ties into January 6, but it was written way back in 2017.
This is exclusively only on politicalpistachio. com, and my page is on Canada Free Press. So I do write for Canada Free Press as well. All right. That all said, as we have people squeezing in yarn, I hope that judge is not confirmed. Yeah, you and me both. But anyway, all right, so where we left off in article four is in section four, the very end of it. So we’re going to wrap that up and then I’m going to spend probably the entire hour going through article five, that article that that one nominated judge didn’t even know what it had to do with.
And here at the very end of article four, section four, after it says United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government. That’s what we went over last week. It says it shall protect each of them against invasion. All right. It is the job of the federal government to take actions necessary to protect the states from invasion. Now, I’m sure at the time they wrote this based on not only reading but just common sense.
What they were referring to was a military invasion where you have troops from another country storming the beach or storming the border or something like that, but it really means that the federal government’s job is to protect the states from outside encroachment, foreign encroachment. Encroachment into the state by foreign powers. So while they probably meant military invasion, encroachment by a foreign body or force could take many forms.
And if you look up invasion in your dictionary, one of the definitions is encroachment, unwanted encroachment. What is an encroachment? That is the process of crossing into. So in other words, anybody coming into the country invading, coming across the border, that’s not welcome, that’s not supposed to be there, that has intent to create havoc or unsafe conditions or to take over the governing system, whatever. Foreign invasion, foreign intrusion, foreign encroachment that may or may not also include ill will, bad plans, so on and so forth.
So having said that, now we ask ourselves a question. Is illegal immigration especially the form that’s taken right now where you have persons not just that are mexican or central american or even south american, but from maybe Haiti, Africa, Middle East, China and other countries that have a people or system that hates America, those people are also coming across the border. Is that not an invasion? One could say, well, Doug, they really meant a military operation.
Okay, so if a military operation decides not to put on a uniform and act in a deceptive manner so that you don’t know it’s military operation, we’re supposed to decide then it’s not an invasion because it doesn’t look like one, because they’ve been so deceptive, we’re just supposed to throw our hands up and say, well, they’re not in uniform. It’s not an invasion. Isn’t that kind of irresponsible? So I think it’s reasonable to consider that this unwanted encroachment, this illegal immigration issue, these people who are crossing into the country partly because we have a federal government not willing to secure the border, is this not an invasion? And if this is an invasion, then we have a government who’s not securing the border, violating the Constitution.
Now that I’ve said that, what is the state to do if the federal government is not following constitution and they’re not protecting the state from invasion as it indicates they’re supposed to do in article four, section four, what happens? What is a state to do? So if we go over to article one, section ten, just as a real quick side note, at the very end, a very last paragraph, article one, section ten, it says, no state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ship of war in time of peace, enter any agreement or compact with their state or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
So in other words, according to article four, it is the federal government’s job, it is their duty, it is their constitutional requirement to protect the state from invasion. But if the federal government is not protecting the state from invasion, or the invasion happens at a moment where the federal government cannot respond in time or is not able to respond or does not know about it, or whatever reason you want to throw up in the air, according to article one, section ten, that’s okay.
The state doesn’t have to sit there and wonder if the federal government is going to protect it. The state could take it upon itself to engage in war with those invaders. In other words, to use its militia, which according to the US code includes the National Guard, to protect itself against invasion. And it doesn’t even have to wait until the invasion begins. The state can believe it is an imminent danger of invasion.
All it has to do is believe it’s going to be invaded, and it is allowed constitutionally to use its militia, use its resources to wage war and defend itself against that invasion. So once again, article four, section four. It is a requirement of the United States government, federal government, to protect each of the states against invasion. But if it fails to do so, article one, section ten, indicates the state could take care of that business itself.
It is allowed to protect itself from invaders. And again, who are invaders? Who are the invaders? We have military age men from countries who hate us, encroaching the border, coming across the border, and we know they have ill will. There’s terrorism. There was an improvised explosive device actually found at the border recently. I was reading the headline. I didn’t read the whole story. If that isn’t an invasion, if that isn’t the enemy at the gate, I don’t know what is.
Yeah, but, Doug, they mean a military operation. Once again. So are we so foolish to believe that if a military force wants to destroy us, but if they take off their uniform, we can’t do anything about it. It’s a military force from China, from the middle east, from other countries crossing the border, invading us ill will. We have a federal government not following article four, section four of the Constitution, stopping the invasion.
And we have article one, section ten, saying, fine, states, defend yourself. And now we got a federal government saying, no, state, you can’t do that. In fact, the court is going to tell you can’t do that either. You know what these states need to do? Like Texas, who recently had their barriers dismantled, tell the federal government to stick it and defend yourself anyway. Put your national guard, your state militia, your air guard, your, whoever else you want to put out there on the line, fully armed, ready to shoot to kill and defend your border, you have every constitutional right to do so.
And if a federal agent shows up in the border and says, you can’t do that, remove that person from your state, dare I say, any way you can, because the federal government is not willing to meet its constitutional obligation. Therefore, states, you have every right to do so yourself. That’s not just theory. That’s just not some conservative talking. That is the language. I just read it to you.
All right, let’s continue. Can you tell that one kind of makes me hot? Yeah, I get hot under the collar with frustration over that one because it is so clear. So, Doug, the way the judges interpret it, there is no interpretation. It’s pretty dang clear. I don’t need you to interpret that for me. It doesn’t get much more clear than what it says. The United States shall protect each of the states against invasion.
If a state is invaded or feels the imminent danger of being invaded, they have a right to wage war against the invaders. That’s what it says in article four, section four, and article one, section ten. It doesn’t get much more clearer than that. And if you have a federal government that is not keeping a foreign enemy out of the country and out of these states, and is actually penalizing the states for trying to defend themselves against a foreign enemy, the foreign enemy is inside the gates.
The foreign enemy is wandering the halls of Congress, and that foreign enemy needs to be removed as well. Just saying. Okay, article four, section four, next part. And it says, and on application of the legislature, that would be in this case the Congress, I’m sorry, the state legislature applying, saying, hey, federal government, we have a problem here. We need your help. And on application of the legislature or of the executive, when the legislature cannot be convened.
There may be times when the legislature is unable to send this message to federal government so the governor can. When the legislature is unable to against domestic violence. What that is saying is if a state says, hey, we’ve got a domestic violence problem, there is fires in the streets and riots in the alleys and cars on fire, or know, like Portland, Seattle, Ferguson, Kenosha, Baltimore, the list goes on.
If the state says, hey, we got a problem here, it’s too big for us, we can’t take care of it, then the federal government is obligated to take care of that domestic violence with its own resources. But what it’s saying here is, if the state does not ask for that help, the federal government cannot protect the state against domestic violence. Then it’s up to the state. For example, remember when Portland and Seattle and all that garbage was going on? And then people say, well, why doesn’t President Trump just send in the troops, man? And it’s this.
Well, because those states, Washington and Oregon at the time, refused to give the federal government the permission to come in to quell that domestic violence. The federal government does not have the authority to operate inside a state without permission. That’s the reason why your sheriff, as your highest ranking law enforcement officer in your county, has to be notified before ATF or name. The Alphabet agency can operate within that county because the federal government can’t just operate inside a state just for the heck of it.
Yeah, but Doug, the supremacy takes no constitution is a supreme law of the land. And if it says federal government, you can’t operate in a state without the state’s permission. Guess what that means? It means that the federal government cannot operate inside a state without the state’s permission, even when it comes to domestic violence. However, if a state says, okay, it’s gone beyond what we can handle. We’ve done what we can.
Now, federal government, we give you permission. Come on in. We want your help. And that goes across the board. Give you another example. Remember Katrina and the criticism George W. Bush got? Now, once again, I’m not going to necessarily defend w. Here across the board, but in this case, he was right. FEMA. He was accused of taking too long. He didn’t take action. How dare he? What a horrible president.
Governor Blanco of Louisiana at the time, never gave him permission. FEMA could not operate in Louisiana until Blanco, the governor, because, or at least that was the understanding at the time, could have been the legislature, unless the legislature was not convened. But nonetheless, the state had not given the federal government permission. So the FEMA teams could not arrive and operate the buses, could not go into action. Federal assistance could not be launched until the state said, okay, we give you permission.
Remember, we have states here that are supposed to be sovereign and they’re supposed to take care of their own business. So it’s the state’s decision. First state, you have an issue, it’s your state. It’s your internal issue. It’s your domestic thing, take care of it. But if you can’t, if you are willing to say, hey, federal government, come on in, we give you permission, then the federal government can come in with all of its resources, with all of its manpower, with all of its equipment or whatever it needs to use to take care of business, but it can’t do it until the state says, please do.
That’s what this clause is saying. So Trump and Bush had it right. Pretty much everybody else hasn’t. So those are the final two clauses here in article four, section four. Hope you learned something from it. Hope you understand why they wrote what they wrote and what it really means. Now let’s get an article five. An article five is a big one. And once again, get back to that Katrina situation.
Once again, I’m not going to defend Bush because I wasn’t a fan of Bush per se. I don’t think he was a conservative constitutionalist. I think he was a tool. But even as bad as he was, he was still better than someone like gore, but not by a but. So I do want to clarify that. But in that case, w was right. For us older folks, we know the old saying, even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
But article five, now this is a big one. I remember very beginning of today’s show where I told you I watched a video with Senator Kennedy actually asking a Biden judicial nominee, what is the purpose of article five? And she says, well, you know, it really doesn’t come to mind right now. I don’t know. And like I said earlier with my examples, could you imagine a person interviewing to be a mechanic? How do you perform an oil change? And the person says, well, you know exactly what that is and how it works.
It doesn’t come to mind. Article five is one of the most basic parts of the constitution. It is the section of the constitution that explains the amendment process. The amendment process is the ability to alter the system. It’s a process that’s given to us. It’s granted because, see, the constitution is a contract. Contracts don’t change because we want to think a little differently about it or because we think words might mean a little different thing, or because some judge just decided to interpret it that way or create precedent.
Contracts are a very specific type of law. You don’t change a contract without it being amended through a formal procedure. And the formal procedure for amending this contract, for changing the contract, for changing the government, is laid out for us in article five. Article five can be controversial to some, and I’m going to talk about that a little bit. But right now, let’s just get the groundwork laid out and then I’ll get into the questions.
So according article five, there are two ways to propose amendments. Here’s what it reads. 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 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 fourth of the several states, or by conventions in three, four thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
Here’s what it says. Two thirds, both houses. Notice the president’s not mentioned here. The president does not sign proposals to the amendment or proposals to amend the Constitution. This is completely a legislative issue. So if both houses, House representatives, U. S. Senate, approve by two thirds vote each a proposal to the Constitution, it then becomes officially a proposal, and it goes out to the states, and then the states have the option to ratify it.
If three quarters of the states agree to ratify it, it becomes an amendment to the Constitution, an official change to the Constitution. But if three quarters of states do not ratify it, then it does not become an effective amendment, and the Constitution is not amended. Three quarters to ratify, two thirds to proposed by Congress, each house three quarters to ratify. Then it says that there’s two ways that a state can ratify, just like there’s two ways that the amendment can be proposed.
The two ways the amendment can be proposed Congress, two thirds of each house or two thirds of the states having a convention, and then two thirds approving the proposal and then it going out states. The states then have an option here because there’s two ways to approve it state by state. They can either have their state legislatures vote on it. That would be each house, except for Nebraska, who has a unicameral since like 1930s.
Or each state can hold conventions to approve these proposals if they hold a convention. Historically, there are rules for conventions that have been set up. There’s ways to go about conventions, and each state would then have delegates voted on and sent to this convention to debate it, and then vote on whether or not to approve it if it’s done by convention. Convention rules do not allow office holders to be delegates.
These are people representing the people who put them in there as a delegate. Yes, of course. Bad guys will try to influence conventions. That’s what bad guys do. You would hope that the people have enough control over it that the delegates that they want are the ones that are in there. So a state has the option, state legislature or convention, who decides which method to use? Typically, the state legislature will make that decision.
And when the amendment comes to state, they’ll either say, yeah, we’ll vote on it, and say, you know what? We’re going to set up for a convention, or according to this, Congress can choose. You’ll notice that there are a handful of amendments in the constitution in which, in the language it says to be ratified by convention or ratified by the state legislatures of the states. In that case, Congress, in the proposal determined the method of ratification.
Congress can do that. Once again, both houses would have to approve that method if it’s going to be chosen to be a part of the proposal. So two thirds proposal, three quarters ratification, two thirds proposal by Congress, or a convention of states, as some people might call it. And then once the proposal goes out, three quarters ravocation, either by state legislatures or three quarters of states through convention or a mixture, whatever the state decides to do.
Now, here’s where it gets fun. You heard me mention a moment ago something called convention estates. This is a term that was created by some people as another name for article five convention. I prefer to call it an article five convention. I believe that’s the proper name. Article five convention says, you know what? We can’t get Congress to propose the amendments we want. They won’t propose an amendment that will limit their power or limit their pay, or limit their term, or codify when personhood begins or require a balanced budget or whatever.
Once again, I’m not going to get into whether they’re right, wrong, or in between these particular issues. I’m talking about amendments here, and there are certain amendments that you will never, ever see Congress propose. I think at the top of the list is repealing the 17th amendment and the 16th amendment. You’ll never see those, that’s for sure. So how do you get those amendments proposed, if Congress would ever propose them? Well, there’s that article five convention thing.
The states will propose them. If you can get the states to work together and actually hold a convention. And so, see, people say, whoa, wait a second, Doug, you do that and the left will insert their people. They will infiltrate it. They will control that convention and rewrite the constitution. You’ll have a runaway convention. Okay, I understand the fear. So does that mean the only way we should accept proposals for amendments constitution is from Congress.
Do we trust Congress to be the only body allowed to propose amendments? Personally, I don’t. I understand the fear with a markified convention, but the purpose of it being there so that the states can propose amendments that the Congress won’t propose, that need to be proposed to get the Congress or the rest of the federal government under control, maybe to do things to limit their powers. Perhaps. So how can we limit their power by amending the constitution if we’re never willing to hold the convention? That is the only way that they would be willing to have something like that proposed because Congress would never propose it.
It’s almost like a catch 22 or something. Now notice I haven’t necessarily said I favor one or the other. I want you to think about it. You can say, hey, too dangerous. Not going to do it. Okay, well, then you’ll never get the proposals you want because Congress will never propose them. But hey, if you think it’s safer to only allow Congress to be the only ones to propose amendments, fine.
There are others going to say, well, Doug, that’s not acceptable. We need to have the ability to propose amendments that Congress would never propose. We have to have that ability. Okay, then have the article five convention. But it’s too dangerous. Okay, then don’t have it. You can’t have both. Either you’re going to get the proposals you want because you have one, or you’re going to be safer and not hold the article five convention.
But you’ll never get what you need. And the same old, same old will keep on going because there will be no change. Keep on trusting Congress when it comes to proposing amendments. I guess for those of you who are too afraid, I’m not one to these days trust Congress much. But, Doug, do you trust the process of the states holding convention? Not fully. I don’t trust fully me not hitting my thumb with a hammer when I hammer a nail in with a hammer, too.
But I don’t refuse to use the hammer because I might hit my thumb. I recognize that’s a chance I’m going to have to take and I’m going to have to take precautions, take actions to make sure I don’t hit my thumb because I need to use the tool that’s available to me. If I don’t use the tool that’s available to me, the nail is not going to be nailed in.
But hey, it’s too dangerous, Doug. All right, fine. I’ll use a sponge to hammer in the nail, but don’t be sad when it takes me 14 years to get it to move 2 mm. If you have a tool available for the job, you use the tool, Doug, is too dangerous. Okay, then don’t use a tool and we just won’t have any nails in the wall. I’m trying to be as logical as I can here for you.
I want you to understand there’s consequences either way. If you only trust Congress to propose amendments, you’re going to get only what Congress is willing to give you and that’s all you get. But if you want to stick your neck out and take a chance so that we can stop this madness with an article five convention, the reality is there may be some crooked knuckleheads out there that will try to stick a wrench in the works or take control of it.
So what do you do? The same thing you do when you’re using the hammer. You make sure you use the tool properly. You do what you can to make sure that you don’t hit your thumb. That’s what you do. I hope, audience, you understand what I have provided here. I do not want to tell you what to think on it. I do not want you to be told, hey, you have to agree with the convention of states or you have to agree with only Congress proposed amendments.
That’s not my job. My job is to clarify it for you so you can make the decision what you think. But according to Constitution, there are two ways to amend the Constitution. Either two thirds of each house proposes an amendment, or two thirds of states in convention propose an amendment and then three quarters of the states ratify. So, yeah, there’s risk either way, as it was just said in the chat room.
I’m not going to sit here, though, and tell you you’ve got to believe this. You’ve got to believe that. That’s up to you personally. Now, I’m going to give you my personal opinion on it. I don’t trust Congress to be the only entity allowed to propose amendments. I understand the fears, I understand the dangers, and I’m not necessarily a convention states guy where this is the only way we’re going to save America.
I don’t believe that. I believe it’s a tool on the tool belt. I believe nullification is an important tool, too, which a lot of people who are fearful of convention estates believe nullification is a good tool. I think it is, too. I think the two can work together. I also believe in a convention that is mentioned in federal’s paper number 49, where the states get together to audit the federal government, say, hey, that’s unconstitutional.
Federal government, stop it. Or we will hold in a convention to get rid of that power or nullify to get rid of that. There’s other kinds of conventions. In other words, friend of mine calls it a republic review. GR mobile. That’s important, too. That’s a good tool. We have all kinds of tools available to us now. The very last part of article five here also is very important.
So this is what we’re going to wrap it up with now, because we got about twelve minutes left. The last part of this amendment explains amendments that are not allowed. So let’s read the language and then I’ll explain in the best way I can what it means says, provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses of the 9th section of the first article.
So in other words, there are a couple of clauses here, one regarding direct taxation, and the other one regarding the atlantic slave trade, or shutting it down as of 18 eight. And it’s saying here, no amendments interfering with those are allowed. In other words, Congress will be given the option to prohibit the importation of slaves into the United States to outlaw the atlantic slave trade, and no amendment is allowed to stop that opportunity for Congress.
Now, if Congress decides not to it, that’s up to Congress. But article one, section nine, gives Congress the authority as of 18 eight to outlaw the Atlantic slave trade, and no amendment can stop that from happening. And that is exactly what happened. In the fall of 18 seven, Congress passed the law that would outlaw the atlantic slave trade. President Jefferson signed it, and then it was effective January 1, 18 eight.
Now, the latter part of this ties into one of the biggest things we can do to turn this country around, and we’re still trying to figure out how to do it. We’re still working on it, and I’ve even got a couple of people I’m going to be sitting down with talking about it. I’ve talked to state legislatures about this, and so I’m going to get into something very interesting.
So for this last ten minutes, pay close attention. I apologize, by the way, that I keep having a drink. I was ill Thursday through Sunday. I’m still having the scratchy throat coffee kind of thing going on. So I apologize if that’s distracting. All right, so this last part says, and that no state without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Equal suffrage in the Senate.
That’s two senators per state. That has never changed. No amendment is allowed to change that without consent of the states. Then before that, when it says, no state without its consent shall be deprived of equal suffrage, so equal, two per state. But what does suffrage mean? Suffrage means representation. So no state shall lose its equal representation in the Senate without its consent. So there can’t be no amendment that makes states lose their equal representation in the Senate without their consent.
In other words, if there is an amendment, any state that never ratified it never gave their consent, they don’t have to abide by it. What are we talking about? 17th Amendment. 17th amendment. Welcome back. And so now the question is. Well, yeah, but, Doug, the states ratified it. Well, okay, let’s just say from that argument, the states ratified it. But what about the states that never ratified it? Do they have to follow it? Because the other states said so, they never gave their consent.
And there are nine states that never gave their consent, never ratified it. Two of them weren’t states yet. Alaska and Hawaii. They joined the union. It’s already in play. They didn’t see the need to ratify it. When did Arizona get in? 2012. Arizona was already state. Yeah, I think it was 2012 or something like that. 1911? Something like that, yeah. So Alaska and Hawaii weren’t states yet. The other 48 states, though, had the opportunity, and of those other 48 got two that weren’t states yet.
And then we’ve got seven that also never ratified it. Six of them were from the south. You have Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and Mississippi, I believe, were the. If I’m remembering properly, those six. Exactly who they were is not the point here, because the big one is the last one. Then the last state that also never ratified it was Utah. And in Utah’s case, they were not shy about their reason for not ratifying it.
They put it out there. This is against the original intent. This is wrong. We stand against it. We are not only not ratifying it, we vote no. So, based on what I read you at the end of article five, no state shall lose its equal suffrage without its consent. How is it that Utah, who was so adamantly against it, was forced to change how they chose A-U-S. Senator from appointing the senator from the state legislatures to voting them in democratically? And then I get the argument with Doug, then.
They didn’t lose their suffrage. They still have the representation. It’s just that the choice on how to do it was changed. Okay, let’s entertain that part of the argument. What does it mean here? When it says state, does it mean just the vote of the people or the state legislature? It’s just interchangeable. The state means whatever as long as it has something to do with the state. Or does state mean something specifically? So, to help clarify, to help figure this out, first we go to the 10th amendment.
And at the end of the 10th amendment, for those of you who are not there yet, I’ll read it, the whole 10th amendment. I’ll read the whole thing for context. The power is 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. All right, so to the states or to the people. So we’re being told here the states, when the word state is mentioned in the Constitution, does not mean the people because it says the states or the people.
Well, because I’m a good guy here, I’m going to get a second opinion. So I’m going to go over to article three. And in article three, section two, at the very, very, very end of the first paragraph, the very, very last words of that paragraph says, and between a state or the citizens thereof. Once again, it’s separating the states from the citizens or the people. So when the Constitution says state, it does not mean citizens or the people, it means the state.
So the two are not interchangeable. If they were the word or would not appear between the two of them in these two places of the Constitution. Therefore, in article five, it says that no state without its suffrage, I’m sorry, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate. What it’s saying is that the state legislature, or the state apparatus itself, not the people, cannot lose its representation.
Well, if the representation has been changed from that of the state legislatures, appointing the senators to the people, voting them in, then the state did lose its suffrage. And Utah and those other eight states never gave their consent. Yet they’re being told they have to abide by it, even though it says in article five they can’t. Now let me throw one more little wrench in the spokes of this turning wheel of ridiculousness in article one, section four.
Remember earlier we talked about the ways that amendments can be proposed? Congress can propose amendments. States can. In every single case, the proposed amendments, amendment one through 27, all of them, they were proposed by Congress. Congress proposed every single amendment. Constitution is the law of the land. So that means that Congress proposed to change the law of the land through amendments. All 27 times 17th amendment included article one, section four.
The Times places, a 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 choosing senators. It says right there, Congress is not allowed to make law or change regulations regarding how senators are chosen. Who proposed the 17th amendment? Congress did. They violated that clause by proposing that amendment.
They have no authority to be involved in the changing of the places of choosing senators. It says so right there in article one, section four. So a, states that never gave their consent are being forced to lose their suffrage in the senate, and b, the proposal was illegal in the first place. So how is it nobody has brought this up about the 17th amendment? I mean, you hear all the time about people want to repeal the 17th amendment, but how is it nobody is picking up on the fact that it’s illegal? The whole thing is illegal in the first place? How do we get it reversed? This is where I think the states that never gave their consent, like Utah, comes in play.
I’ve been trying to get the Utah state legislature to work with me. I’ve talked to a couple of legislators, but I just don’t seem to get the steam going. And I don’t have the money to go out there and just visit them. Talk about throwing money into the kitty. I saw in the chat room someone asking, ron, hey, how do we put money in your kitty? Hey, how do you put money into Mr.
Constitution’s kitty? No, Douglas, no. I have to have surgery on my cat tomorrow. It’s like 4000. Oh, that kitty. I thought you meant like a kitty. In that case, I feel bad for your kitty. Really? Your kitty is sick. Oh, that’s right. You told me he ate something. No, he ate something. That’s a new situation. That’s a new situation. He ate something and he’s not eating. He vomited all day on Sunday.
He hasn’t eaten in three days. Almost three days now. This is a new one, right? Yeah, my six month old. Oh, wow. All right, give him money first, kitty. But then when you have a little extra, throw it my way to douglasgibbs. com. We got radio shows to pay for and trips to maybe Utah to make so we can get these knuckleheads to work with me on this stuff.
All right, so that’s the end of article five. Boy, do you like how I timed that yeah, as I said, I’m not really playing with the full deck today. All right, well, it’s right at the top of the hour. We’re done. We’ll get article six. Are we on next week? Yeah, if you want to. Between Christmas and, I mean, if the audience is going to be doing stuff with family, then I would rather hold off or they can watch it later or whatever, but I am willing to do it.
But I cannot do it the following week because I will be out of town. That’s fine. But I could be here next week. We can do that. We can do it next week. And I’m glad we did it this week. And it was kind of neat because like I said, I don’t have any classes this week. Next week going out to Torrance and Chino and Carl’s bad and all that stuff that I do or with my homeschool kids.
And so it was kind of nice just I, because I’ve just been writing and researching all day today, so it’s kind of nice to take a break from all of that work for this. So I enjoyed it. So thank you for having me, Ron. And sorry that things got weird at first, but like I said, the link you sent me sent me to the other show, it’s all good.
And that’s why I had to leave because I had to fix it. That class is starting in one to, I’ll let you say orovois to the class and I’m going to go. I’ll see you guys in the next class if you choose to join with Mike and I, and I’ll probably call you tomorrow. All right. So I will end it with this. United we stand combined we kick butt.
God bless America and God bless you. And visit douglasvgibbs. com. Hit. The blog. Politicalpistachio. com will get you there, too. I’ve been writing some good stuff there. And of course become a patron at join. Hit that link or donate. All right, we’ll see you next time. Thanks for spending the time with me. God bless. We’ll see you next week. .
Author
