Time: Mon Nov 25 15:11:19 1996 To: Liberty Law From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: 17th Amendment [sic] Cc: Bcc: correction: Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909) /s/ Paul Mitchell error follows below: ><snip> >>I have been doing some work on modelling the >>concept of our system of government and the >>changes through which it has passed. It >>occurred to me - >> >>Originally, the "federal" or compounded aspect >>of our legislative government consisted largely >>of one clause in the Constitution, which has >>subsequently been ammended: >> >> Orginally, Senators were chosen by the >> State legislatures to represent the state's >> interest. This was changed by Amendment 17 >> in 1913 to "popular" direct election. >> >>In effect, this removed one of the last vestiges of a >>compounnd federal legislative government from our >>system's structure. Taken with other events of this >>era, it would seem to reinforce the argument that >>a legal incorporation occurred, in effect, eliminating >>State citizenship as a separate possibility. > >Objection. What a leap you take here! >See Gardina v. Board of Supervisors of >Electors: The highest exercise of a >state's sovereignty is to declare who >are its citizens. BTW, 17th amendment >would have required ratification by >100% of the Union States, because otherwise >any State opposed to it would be denied >equal suffrage within the Senate. See >Article V, Clause 1. I have a draft Application >for Intervention of Right which develops >this matter in some detail; it is available >upon request here. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > > The >>government ceased to be a compounded republic and >>became a representative national democracy at that >>point. > >Only in the federal zone, because >the Guarantee Clause was never >repealed. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > > True, the number of Senators per "State" >>remained the same, but they no longer represented >>the "State," only regional interests and differences. >> >>"Sovereignty" is a concept between nations and >>entirely dependent upon international law and recognition >>for its legitimacy. The international community has not >>recognized the States as sovereign since the Articles of >>Confederation. State "sovereignty," as well as individual >>sovereignty rested legally in the limitations and structures >>"Constituted" as the foundation of government. The removal >>of internal structures to maintain "state" sovereignty >>results in an incorporation of citizenship, with attendant >>repercussions to the realignment of protection of individual >>rights and transfer of "police/municipal" powers to the >>United States government. >> >>Vestiges of State sovereignty remain in the Presidential >>"electoral college;" the ninth and tenth Amedment; and, to >>some degree, the court structure, but it should >>be emphasized that the international law does not recognize >>State and individual sovereignty, and without the internal >>Constitutional butresses intact to protect such from >>encroachment, a State or individual declaring "sovereignty" >>has no legitimacy or standing in the eyes of international >>law. >> >>I would appreciate your comments. > >Serious logical errors in what >you have written here. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > >> >>Marcia A. >> >> > >==================================================================== >[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] >[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] >Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com >ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] >We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. >Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan >==================================================================== > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail