The Nationalization of the United States of America

This initial post is to focus on the 17th Amendment

What I call the Nationalization of the United States of America is particularly focused upon 1912-1913. During that time we saw the creation of the Federal Reserve, the 17th Amendment (loss of State representation) and the 16th Amendment.

While I tend to believe at the smallest levels of society, mainly municipalities and communities, we can govern ourselves how we see fit. It is at the larger levels where a rigid, strict structure of Government must be created to ensure that the said local free peoples are protected by larger interests and foriegn entities. The dissemination and diluting of democratic principles, spread amongst the largest area possible was to ensured that the People remained involved in self-governing, while protecting that very People from complete control at a National level.

Many of you know, I am a strong proponent of a review and possible repeal of the 17th Amendment, specifically the following: "...elected by the people thereof, for six years;..." 17th Amendment - Full Text

Under the original Constitution, prior to the 17th Amendment; Article I, Section 3. read as follows:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

The reasoning behind such a decision can be found in Federalist Papers No. 39 written by James Madison. He begins by stating: Federalist Papers No. 39

The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people.

This was to explain the House of Representative was a directly elected body by the people. The Senate was to be indirectly elected (mainly appointed by State legislatures).

Giving the People access in the more numerous body of Congress, the power of impeachment, the origination of bills concerning raising of revenue and to declare war, to name a few. The Senate, comprising of appointed senators by state legislatures were given less power and were to be an intermediary between the House and the Executive. Powers enumerated such as prosecution of impeachments, confirming of executive appointments and judges, to again, name a few.

The clear separation of the two houses was to effectively again, spread out powers as much as possible while not affecting the proper and studious administration of Government at a National level.

James Madison, again from the Federalist Papers No. 39, goes on to explain how we were never to be solely National, nor Federal in nature, but an equal balance of both. This was a redefinition of what a 'republic' is and was.

He states the following:

The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL.

Then continues:

The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL.

The principles set forth were exactly how he imagined, without of course, interaction of Man. By the very nature of the original intent, we see that the States were to be represented equally as possible as the People when it came to the Legislative portion of our system of Government. Allowing each to provide a check in power within the same branch. The protects placed in separating the Houses and giving one to the People and the other to the States was to keep "The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature."

By ratifying the 17th Amendment, I propose that it was an overtly attempt (successful at that) to drive the country to become purely democratic and begin destroying the principles of what a republic is. It stripped away the possibility of "...the local or municipal authorities form[ing] distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere."

The ratification removed the sovereignty of the States to be direct participants within the National Government. To express its interests, which by extension was an indirect expression of its People that resided within. It also makes a large assumption that the People would remain competent at all times to execute its duties as self-governing, free Peoples. Which we have now learned, is far from the case.

What it has created is one large body within two separate house to legislate for its own interests without regard to the sovereignty of the individual states. This muddies the powers delegated to each house, in separate articles within the Constitution. The powers of the House to self-check against runaway legislation have been completely removed. The impeachment process, in which was once owned by the People, has become powerless to remove those that have fallen out of favor of the People when they have committed Constitutionally defined offenses.

To give an example of how that works, the People have voted in their Representatives, whom now have nearly the same agenda as their counterparts within the Senate. Why demand impeachment within the House when you know that the persons within the Senate also were put into place by the very people who are demanding impeachment. There is no more accountability in this regard.

I will conclude at this time to leave it at such. Just repealing the portion of the 17th Amendment that makes direct elections of Senators will not cure all the ails of the country. It still requires a better working foundation to ensure that states do not abuse their enumerated powers at the Federal level to appoint Senators. Given that, the current amendment did nothing but move the country in the direction of become a Nationalistic Government with little protection from Direct Democracy. Leaving only the vocal minority to rule over the silent majority.

On that note I have to wait to get home and correct a few minor mistakes.

Anyone know of a forum where people are willing to discuss issues that are not sensational in nature?

I know its tough. To think beyond whatever you are told beyond what the media has spewed. But dig deep and use that brain that separates us from the animal kingdom. Use the brain to think about what I said and what you think. Am I wrong? Am I right? Why in both instances?

I know I know, its not a sensational title. It doesn't call the 'right' wing crazy and the 'left' wing looney.

It's a question for us to answer. To investigate and explore. Were those that implemented the 17th Amendment correct in giving power to the people directly to the people, thus negating the purpose of having two separate but equal powers in the Congress a good idea?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Greetings! It's so refreshing to encounter an open mind that want's to explore the truth as I feel it's our sacred duty to help break the confines of incuriosity. However there are so many levels of truth brought to us, I just wish people would realize that we only receive it to the extent that we seek it! Hence the quandary we are in right now is beckoning for us to listen to the divine imperative and hearken to the revelations that have long since been entering the periphery of our awareness to ascertain a deeper understanding that leads us to reflect upon the divine plan being brought forth by the Company of Heaven and the Light weavers bringing us compelling evidence from the Source Field of energy, mind, spirit and consciousness that's slowly rippling rhapsodized energy waves out from the galactic center transforming our DNA for the upcoming Renaissance that's preceded with this chaos of great tribulation implemented through the planned Illuminati/government takeover.

Such an oxymoron of opposing outcomes both prevalently looming the gravitation of our belief swinging the scales of polarity extremes, coursing the inlets of the unvigilant and vigilant awareness, for there are many structures of understanding that all operate on different levels of consciousness.

All the revelations coming through are here to prepare us to ascend the dimensions of ever evolving awareness that gives place to the greater truth building a network of Light to assist those still grappling with the myopic viewpoint. Fortunately more people are awake now with more than enough information to connect the dots for the prophesied upcoming re-creation of our world where the neutrinos are mutating the visceral to take the reins of outer appearances, the false world view still attempting to steer us in the opposite direction to truth, revealed here in the EndGame video below, that's warning us the future we desire will not become clear until it's swept clean from the Dark cabal trying to turn us into a fascistic dictatorship. If people were only to listen to their intuition, the right brain, it would tell us the only way to free ourselves of mental bondage is to recover the knowledge that has been withheld in the vicissitudes of existence that goes back much further than we are led to believe depicted here in this entertaining documentary. The Legend of Atlantis Part 1 of 25

www.youtube.com...

This here video of the EndGame HQ full length version reveals the New world Order, the left fork in the road of the bifurcation ahead if we don't hearken to the revelations depicted in the Mythic Call: A Return Path to the Stars below, or many other such resources revealing the positive prophecies for 2012 such as The 2012 Enigma video also below that will bring us the rhythm of free choice to flow and play with the infinite spectrum of possibilities. As to a forum you would probably enjoy this one divinecosmos.com...

EndGame HQ full length version
www.youtube.com... or

The Mythic Call: A Return Path to the Stars
www.youtube.com...

The 2012 Enigma by David Wilcock
video.google.com...#

UFO ALIEN 2012 SHELDON NIDLE ABOUT THE 2013 TRANSITION
He presents the order of events that will occur as we head towards 2013
www.youtube.com...

UFO ALIEN 2012 SHELDON NIDLE ABOUT THE 2013 TRANSITION
He presents the order of events that will occur as we head towards 2013
www.youtube.com...

www.newrealitytransmission.com...

In light and Love

reply to post by GoldenGlow


Um....what? Mods I really think this doesn't pertain to anything except...well, I do not know.

I think we should repeal the 17th.
Two directly elected bodies? Clearly there was a motive there to reduce the influence and power of the states. Let's repeal the 16th amendment as well and abolish the federal reserve by reversing the Federal Reserve Act.

The Senators are simply corporate front men instructed to protect corporate interests, not state interests.

reply to post by Stewie


Absolutely....think of it as such:

Currently, if you were a lobbyist pushing for new legislation the following number of persons would need to be influenced:

1 President, 5 supreme court justices, 255 representatives, 60 senators (give or take a couple based on voting and filibusters). Even the president could be excluded in lieu of gaining some more votes in the House and Senate.

With the consolidation of the Senate being directly elected, it gave Congress all purse strings without the States having their sovereign right to be engaged in that legislation.

If the selection of Senators was given back to the states' legislatures, the lobbyist would have to influence also the legislatures of that given State. Who are more directly elected by the people. Then those legislatures would feel the pressure of people that are more willing to engage in local politics because one can have the most effect locally.

The system was never meant to be as democratic as it is today. Nationalizing it under the guise of 'bringing people closer to their government' was one of the greatest bait and switches of all times. Couple this with the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve, all power resides in Washington and crony-capitalist that have twisted the free-market in their favor.

(Side Note: What we see the largest of corporations engage in is nothing close to how capitalism operates. They have convoluted it, with the help of a free-wheeling Congress to manipulate and distort the markets they engage in by destroying the level playing field.)

The foresight of the Founding Fathers was to spread democratic principles out and do so as far as possible. Allowing at the small levels of Government, their ability to engage in direct democracy because the scope was manageable and efficient. As we move up in scope, less and less democratic principles are needed to offset the obvious fact that people will not remain competent to engage in such a gigantic responsibility.

This is the weapon of choice for our politicians. Here is a fact that I bet those educated today would call false:

A representative in the lower house (the House of Representatives) represents not you directly, but a district in which you reside. He/She is to discern the general consensus of how that district would be best served under their representation.

A senator in the upper house (the Senate) represents not you at all. They are a representative of the State (well, not anymore of course.) They are to be the eyes and ears in Washington to balance out the will of the People with the will of the state. This give/take is what makes sure stupid, ineffective, inefficient legislation does not muddle the Congress.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I suppose to reverse this mistake would first take an comprehensive analysis of exactly by what means it was perpetrated in the beginning.
Certainly it takes powerful people, and behind these powerful people is the profit incentive and the ability to control and limit the players in the market. We Americans must find a way to marshal the power WE have.
Small, local businesses should not be putting their money in campaign contributions unless they are dedicated to correcting these "mistakes". I suppose a start would be to somehow reach these small business organizations to take some power back to the states.
And, I guess, the states rights folks should be aware of this calculated imbalance.
Thanks btw for pointing out this aspect of the "takeover" if you will.

reply to post by Stewie


To further your argument, in my opinion, we will never see an actual comprehensive review of such an amendment. Let us think of the Constitutional ways to bring about changes to the Constitution.

We have two that are explicit and one that is implicit. The first two, as defined within the Constitution are as follows:

Method One: A bill is passed by both houses by 2/3rds vote. From there, it goes to the States whom collectively must pass via their legislation (or convention) of 3/4ths.

Method Two (Never utilized): 2/3rds of the States propose an amendment. Wherein the amendment has to be approved by 3/4ths of the said legislatures.

In both cases, 3/4ths of the State legislatures must pass the amendment. It is evident by this framework within the Constitution that the States are to be given a clear voice within the halls of the Federal Government.

The third, which could possibly be derived from Framer James Wilson. He argued that since the power of the Constitution was derived from the States and the People, that the People could have the power to institute an amendment. He states:

... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.

Now, given the two Constitutional methods, the first has been defeated with the passing of the 17th Amendment. The Congress will never impose upon itself a reduction in their power given that both houses are of the same makeup.

The second, which I believe to be the most viable in this modern age, should be used by the States if they are truly committed in reigning in an overstepped National Government.

The third, while it will be highly contested at the Supreme Court level is one that is not popular on me. I do not believe the People should have that power as it doesn't speak for the silent majority that may be left out of the equation. If they hold the 3/4th standard, then I may warm up to the notion and probably support such a process. But pure majority is always a sinister route.

It is at this point in time that we must refocus our politics towards the States and begin pushing for the Amendment process that way. Since it is evident that Congress acts solely for its own interests now, there is no way we would ever see a bill that would benefit the People and liberty to pass with 2/3rds of Congress.

It is my belief that since Congress knows this fact, they go about the controversial method of 'amendment' through interpretation of the Constitution. It is much easier to influence 5 justices than 3/4ths of the States to go along with changing the meaning and scope of the Federal Government and the Constitution.