On April 8, 1913, the 17th amendment to the Constitution, providing for the popular election of U.S. senators, was ratified.
1 reply on “17th Amendment”
Article V of the US Constitution, which Article provides for Amendments, reads (with emphasis added by me): “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.”
The alleged Seventeenth Amendment takes representation in the Senate altogether from each state. Thus, the alleged Amendment would have to have been ratified by each an every state to go into effect. The state of Utah explicitly rejected the amendment. Sixth other states had taken took no action at the time of ostensible ratification; a total of eight states have taken no action at this time.
We may be sure that, should the courts recognize that the alleged amendment is not properly part of the Constitution, no state would not delegate to its population the election of its Senators, the state of Utah would reverse itself, and the eight states that have take no action would ratify it. So the issue is largely technical. Still, I am quite annoyed that a fraudulent ratification has been so successful.
1 reply on “17th Amendment”
Article V of the US Constitution, which Article provides for Amendments, reads (with emphasis added by me): “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.”
The alleged Seventeenth Amendment takes representation in the Senate altogether from each state. Thus, the alleged Amendment would have to have been ratified by each an every state to go into effect. The state of Utah explicitly rejected the amendment. Sixth other states had taken took no action at the time of ostensible ratification; a total of eight states have taken no action at this time.
We may be sure that, should the courts recognize that the alleged amendment is not properly part of the Constitution, no state would not delegate to its population the election of its Senators, the state of Utah would reverse itself, and the eight states that have take no action would ratify it. So the issue is largely technical. Still, I am quite annoyed that a fraudulent ratification has been so successful.