Constitution Class Handout – January 13, 2015, 6:00 pm
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com
AllStar Collision, Inc.
522 Railroad Street
Corona, CA
Sponsored by TLCC
Truth and Liberty Covenant Coalition
Corona · Norco · Eastvale
info@tlccoalition.org
www.tlccoalition.org
Lesson 17
Progressive
Era Amendments
16th Amendment: Income Tax
Income Tax is a direct
tax. The Founding Fathers prohibited
direct taxes in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States
Constitution.
The concept of an income tax
emerged during the American Civil War as a means of assisting in paying for the
Union war effort. In 1861, Congress drew
up a bill to tax personal and corporate incomes. This first income tax measure in the United
States called for a 3% tax on incomes over $800. The bill quickly passed in both the House and
the Senate, but it was never put into operation.
In 1862, Abraham Lincoln
signed a bill that imposed a 3% tax on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a
5% tax on higher incomes. The bill was
amended in 1864 to levy heavier taxation on higher incomes. The 1862 income tax law was repealed in 1872
and was declared to be unconstitutional, in violation of Article I, Section 9,
Clause 4 of the United States Constitution.
Progressivism was on the rise in the United States around the turn
of the 20th Century. Americans were
concerned about the large national debt that remained with the United States as
a result of the Spanish-American War, and the growing social inequality between
the rich and the poor. The idea that
there should be a tax that “soaks the rich” began to take root among
progressives of both major parties. The
Democrats took to progressivism more than the Republican Party, and the
progressives of the Democrat Party were looking for a way to embarrass the
conservative arm of the GOP so that they could gain some traction in the next
election.
With social unrest rising
among the population, a Democrat proposed the Bailey Bill with the
express hope the Republicans would reject it.
The theory was that after the Republicans rejected the bill, the Democrats
could then point a finger at the Republicans, claiming for political purposes
that the Republicans were in cahoots with the corrupt wealthy corporate
types. A Republican rejection of the
Bailey Bill, which would have imposed an income tax on the rich, would serve as
proof of such an alignment between the Republicans and the wealthy. The slogan used by proponents of the Bailey
Bill was “soak the rich,” a direct call to tax people they considered to be profiteers, a class of plutocrats they claimed were in
collusion with the Republicans.
The conservative Republicans
knew what the progressives of the Democrat Party were up to, and launched a
counter move. They proposed a
constitutional amendment that would impose an income tax on the rich, and when
the States refused to ratify the amendment, the Republicans would use that
failure to ratify the amendment as proof that the people, through their State
legislatures, were against the idea of a new income tax. In turn, that would defeat the Bailey Bill,
for how could Congress approve an income tax against the rich through the
Bailey Bill after the people and States rejected a constitutional amendment
that would have done the very same thing?
The proponents of the 16th
Amendment promised that if it were to be ratified (remember, it was fully
expected not to be ratified) the income tax would only be imposed on the top 5%
wage earners, it would be voluntary, and it would be temporary.
The progressives of the Republican
Party, however, rallied behind the proposed amendment, and the Secretary of
State announced the amendment was ratified on February 12, 1913.
Progressives, satisfied the
16th Amendment was ratified, hoped to use it to tax the rich. In the beginning, only 5% of the people were
required to submit tax returns. Many of
the rich, however, avoided the tax with charitable deductions, and other
creative strategies.
During World War II Franklin
Delano Roosevelt saw the income tax as a way to vastly increase revenue, and
initiated a policy of withholding from “all” wages and salaries, not just the
highest incomes enjoyed by the rich.
Rather than the rich paying the tax at the end of the year, the tax was
collected at the payroll window before it was even due to be paid by the
taxpayer. This style of collection
shifted the tax from its original design as a tax on the wealthy to a tax on
the masses, mostly on the middle class.
In addition to violating the
original intent of Article I, Section 9 prohibiting direct taxation, the
income tax also opposes the 4th Amendment which requires that a citizen’s
privacy be protected. An income tax
enforced by the Internal Revenue Service violates the privacy of the home,
business, personal papers and personal affairs of the private citizen. Since the tax is based on income, the IRS has
the task of making sure everyone pays his fair share. This task is physically impossible without
prying into the private papers, private business and personal affairs of the
individual citizens.
Since the ratification of
the 16th Amendment, there have been questions about whether the proper number
of State ratification votes were ever achieved.
Despite the argument by some researchers that the 16th Amendment was
never properly ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states, and that
politicians of the day were aware of the discrepancy, Secretary of State
Philander Knox fraudulently declared ratification. Some may suggest that he did so under the
urgings of wealthy bankers like J.P. Morgan.
Terms:
Bailey
Bill - Income Tax introduced in April 1909 by Senator Joseph W. Bailey, a
Democrat from Texas, designed to embarrass conservative Republicans when they
voted against it. The introduction of
the bill was one of the factors that led to the proposal of the 16th Amendment.
Direct
Taxation - A government levy on the income, property, or
wealth of people or companies. A direct
tax is borne entirely by the entity that pays it, and cannot be passed on to
another entity.
Plutocrat – A
person whose power derives from their wealth.
Profiteer - A
person who seeks exorbitant profits.
Progressivism -
Philosophy that views progress as seeking change in approaches to solving
economic, social, and other problems, often through government sponsored
programs.
Questions
for Discussion:
1. Why did the
Founding Fathers not allow direct taxation by the Federal Government?
2. What lesson
can be learned from the story of the Bailey Bill and the passing of the 16th
Amendment?
3. Why didn’t
“soaking the rich” work as hoped?
4. Why did
President Roosevelt extend the income tax to include all wages and earnings?
Resources:
Bill
Benson, The Law That Never Was:
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
Ethan
Pope, America’s Financial Demise: Approaching
the Point of No
Return; Dallas,
TX: Intersect Press (2010)
W. Cleon
Skousen, History of the 16th Amendment, National Retail
Sales Tax Alliance: http://www.salestax.org/library/skousen_16history.html
Federal Reserve
The same year the 16th
Amendment created the income tax, the Federal Reserve was also
created. The Federal Reserve is not a
federal agency, and is actually a privately owned corporation owned by a secret
group of international bankers. The
Federal Reserve holds a monopoly on the creation of money in the United
States. Whenever the U.S. Government
needs money it borrows the money from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve gladly loans that money
because doing so results in a good profit for the bankers.
The Federal Reserve is not
the first central bank, but it is the longest lasting. The First Bank of the United States in 1791,
created by Alexander Hamilton, became a system of control over the American
economy, and was, as described by Jefferson and Madison, “an engine for speculation,
financial manipulation, and corruption.”
In order to properly
function, a central bank needs a collection of large sums of money from the
people to pay off the interest on the money the government borrows. The creation of the income tax provided that
opportunity.
The Federal Reserve Act
surrendered control of the monetary system to the international banking cartel
and guaranteed the eventual abandonment of the gold standard. The Federal Reserve's debt-based money
guaranteed the enslavement of every American under a crushing debt burden. The Federal Reserve guaranteed the ability of
the international banking cartel to confiscate wealth through artificially
created boom/bust cycles.
The result is that the U.S.
Government, and the bankers in charge of the Federal Reserve, can manipulate
the economy simply by the amount of money they decide to pump into the
system. The more currency is pumped into
the system, the greater the rise of inflation rates. A reduction of the printing of money then results
in a recovering economy. Government
spending, in relation to the national debt, has a direct impact on the economic
cycles we experience. The more the
government borrows, the more fiat money is pumped into the system. The result is increased inflation, and a
stalled economy. Cutting spending
results in less money being borrowed, which then returns value to the dollar,
and in turn reduces the level of inflation while encouraging capitalism to thrive.
The welfare system was
created to compensate for the damage caused by the Federal Reserve and the
income tax.
The 16th Amendment allows
for the taxation on income from whatever source derived, which gives Congress,
for the most part, carte blanche to tax at will, while giving the IRS
the power to do all of the things the founders specifically disallowed the
federal government from doing. This
invasion of privacy, without due process, will continue as long as the 16th
Amendment remains in force.
The income tax is in line with the Marxist philosophy
of destroying a capitalist society by steeply graduating taxes on income and
applying heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die.
Terms:
Capitalism - An
economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital
goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices,
production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by
competition in a free market.
Carte
Blanche - Unrestricted power to act at one’s own discretion;
unconditional authority; derived from “blank cheque.”
Federal
Reserve - A privately owned corporation owned by a secret
group of international bankers. The
federal reserve holds a monopoly on the creation of money in the United
States. Whenever the U.S. Government
needs money it borrows the money from the Federal Reserve, thus creating a
national debt.
Fiat
Money - Money that derives its value from government regulation or law, but
is not backed by any tangible collateral; money that lacks any intrinsic value.
Inflation - A
sustained, rapid increase in prices, over months or years, and mirrored in the
correspondingly decreasing purchasing power of the currency.
Questions
for Discussion:
1. What are the
similarities between Alexander Hamilton’s National Bank, and the Federal Reserve?
2. How does the
existence of Federal Reserve adversely influence our economic system?
Resources:
Abolish
the Federal Reserve dot org: http://abolishthefederalreserve.org/
G. Edward
Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island
: A Second Look at
the Federal Reserve; Appleton, WI: American Opinion Publishing (1994)
17th
Amendment: State Representation in the Senate
To comprehend the 17th
Amendment, we need to go back in history to understand how our political system
was originally established. The Founding
Fathers included a number of checks and balances during the creation of
the federal government in the hopes of providing enough safeguards to protect
the people from an ever expansive, tyrannical, consolidated central
government. The separation of powers
between the three branches of government, and between the federal government
and the States, were an integral part of these protections against
tyranny. However, not all of the checks
and balances put in place were obvious, nor are all of the checks and balances
taught to us during our school years.
The dynamics of the federal
government were set up to prevent any part of government from having access to
too much power. Too much power in any
one part of the system could be dangerous, and this includes too much power in
the hands of the people.
The general population, just
like the government, cannot be fully trusted with absolute power. To prevent the danger of too much power
residing in any part of government, power needed to be divided as much as
possible so as to keep it under control.
Too much power in the hands of anybody has the potential of being a
dangerous proposition, including in the hands of the voting public.
The United States is not a democracy. All of the voting power was not given
directly to the people. The voting power
was divided to ensure the Republic was protected from the mob-rule
mentality of democracy.
The vote of the people, or
the people’s full and unquestioned voice in government, was, and still is,
manifested in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then, as now, the representatives were voted
into office directly by the people. Each
Representative represents a district.
The members of the United States Senate were not voted in directly by
the people during the time period immediately following the ratification of the
United States Constitution. U.S.
Senators were voted in by an indirect vote of the people.
The Senators were appointed
by their State legislatures. The State
legislators are voted into office by the people of the State. Therefore, during the early years of this
nation, the Senators attained office by an indirect vote of the people through
their State legislatures.
The people are represented
indirectly by the States in the U.S. Senate, and by the States appointing the
Senators, the method of appointment allowed State’s interests to be represented
in the U.S. Congress.
Since they were appointed by
the State legislatures, the Senators looked at the political atmosphere in a
different manner than the members of the House of Representatives. Members of the House of Representatives are
directly voted into office by the people, so their concerns are more in line
with the immediate concerns of the people, no matter how whimsical those
concerns may be.
The Senate functioned in a
very different manner because when the Senators were appointed they were
expected to abide by the wishes of the State legislatures. The Senators were expected to be
representative of what was best for their States; State’s Rights, State
Sovereignty, protecting the States not only from a foreign enemy, but from a
domestic enemy, should the federal government become the potential tyranny that
the Founding Fathers, and especially the Anti-federalists, feared a central
government could become.
The federal government
exists because the States allow it to.
The powers derived by the federal government were granted to it by the
States, so in a way the States birthed the federal government, making the
States the parents of the government in Washington, D.C. The federal government is not supposed to be
able to do much of anything without the permission of the several States. The Senate was the representation of the
States so that the States could ensure the federal government remained within
its authorities.
The States having
representation in the federal government through the U.S. Senate was also
another way that checks and balances were applied to the system. The House of Representatives represented the people, and the Senate represented the States. Through this arrangement, it gave the people
the ability to check the States, and the States the ability to check the people,
and together they checked the Executive.
The dynamics of our government through this arrangement were a built in
check and balance.
The States could not get too
far without the people approving of a senatorial proposal. The people could not get much done without
The States agreeing with a proposal that originated in the House of
Representatives. The executive branch
could get little done without both the people and the States approving of
it. However, if the President did not
like what the people and the States were trying to accomplish, he could veto
the bill. If the people and the States
felt the legislation was important enough, they could override that veto with
two-thirds of a vote in both Houses.
Looking at it in another
way, a bill would be approved by both the people and the States before it went
to the President to become law. This
gave the Executive and both parts of the legislative branch the opportunity to
approve or disapprove potential laws.
In 1913, the Seventeenth
Amendment changed the originally intended dynamics of the American form of
government. The amendment removed the
States’ representation from U.S. Government proceedings. The Seventeenth Amendment changed the
appointment of the Senators from that of the State legislatures to that of the direct
vote of the people. As a result, the
protection of State Sovereignty was removed, and in its place was inserted ideology,
and the willingness of Senators to buy the votes of individual voters through
gifts from the treasury in a manner that was already emerging from the House of
Representatives.
Vacancies in the Senate
The Seventeenth Amendment
also provides for appointments should a seat in the U.S. Senate be left vacant
for any reason. The governors of the
States, should the legislatures allow such, may make temporary appointments
until a special election takes place.
The State legislatures may change these rules as they deem necessary,
such as requiring an immediate special election instead of allowing the
governor to temporarily appoint a replacement.
This leaves most of the power regarding filling vacancies in the hands
of the State legislatures.
Massachusetts, during the
reign of Democrat governors, used the rule that if there was a vacancy in the
U.S. Senate, the governor could appoint the new Senator to complete that term
of office. When Mitt Romney, who was a
Republican, was governor, the Democrat dominated legislature feared a
Republican appointment should one of the Massachusetts Senators die, so they
changed the rule to require an immediate special election, fully confident the
people would put another Democrat into office should one of the seats be
vacated. The Massachusetts legislature
even overrode a veto by Governor Mitt Romney to accomplish their rule change.
Romney did not run for
reelection in 2006, and his gubernatorial term in Massachusetts ended January
4, 2007.
The new governor of
Massachusetts in 2007 was Deval Patrick, a Democrat. When Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy passed away
August 25, 2009, since the State of Massachusetts had a Democrat governor, the
Democrat-led legislature hurriedly changed the rule to enable the governor to
appoint the new Senator as had been allowed before Mitt Romney was governor,
just in case the people could not be trusted.
The appointed Democrat Party
senator held the seat until a special election in January of 2010 that pitted
Republican Scott Brown against Democrat Martha Coakley. To the surprise of the entire nation, Scott
Brown won the election, sending tremors through the political establishment,
which included the Democrats losing a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S.
Senate. Brown was defeated in 2012 by
Democrat Elizabeth Warren, returning the Senate Seat back to the Democrats when
she took office on January 3, 2013.
More like a Democracy
In the end, the real damage
caused by the ratification of the 17th Amendment was that State representation
in the Congress was removed. Senators,
after the ratification of the 17th Amendment, would be voted into office by the
vote of the people, making the U.S. Senate more like the House of Representatives,
eliminating a very important check and balance, and making the United States
more like a democracy and less like the Republic the Founders originally
intended.
The people, fooled by a
relenting rallying cry of “The will of the people,” and a common belief that
the leaders of the States could not be trusted, demanded that the federal
government be changed into something more like a democracy. As the progressives desired, and planned, the
American form of government moved closer to a democracy with the 17th
Amendment.
Karl Marx once stated that
“Democracy is the road to socialism.”
Progressivism was on the
rise in the United States during those early years of the 20th Century, and the
statists knew that one of their main obstacles to consolidating government
power into the grasp of the central authority in Washington was the independent
and sovereign voice of the States. The
17th Amendment was one of the vehicles the statists used to begin the process
of silencing the States, with the ultimate goal of making them irrelevant in
regards to the running of the federal government.
The statists did not reveal their true intentions. If they had proclaimed that they desired the
ratification of the 17th Amendment so that they could proceed in their quest to
change the United States into a socialist system, the people would have
rejected it. Instead, they used a
populist argument. “It is for the will
of the people. You deserve a Senate
voted into office by the democratic will of the people. If you directly vote for the Senators, they
will be more apt to act in line with the will of the people. After all, the States are corrupt, and they
can’t be trusted. You, the voting
public, in the interest of democracy, deserve to be able to directly vote for
the Senators yourselves.”
As a result, the whole
American political system has been turned on its head. The entire dynamic of our government system
as it was originally intended to function has changed.
The damage to the American
form of government reached deeper into the dynamics of our Constitutional Republic than immediately meets the eye.
The Founding Fathers made
the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate different from each other for
a reason.
If a President of the United
States signs a treaty, before that treaty goes into force, it must be ratified
by the U.S. Senate, which back then was the voice of the States. It was the Framer’s way of making sure the
States could act as a protective mechanism against a President who might make
treaties that were dangerous to State Sovereignty. However, now the Senate no longer represents
the States, so that important safeguard is no longer in place. Senators more apt to defend an ideology,
rather than the best interest of their State, are in office now. The ratification of treaties has totally
changed in a way that could place State Sovereignty in jeopardy. The States no longer have a voice in that
part of the governing process anymore, and as a result it has become easier for
the federal government to enter into treaties that compromise State interests,
or local issues over which the federal government would normally not have any authority.
Another point to examine in
regards to the Senate ratification of treaties, is since the people, through
their States, are the final arbiters of the Constitution, the Founders felt no
worry about unconstitutional treaties being ratified. After all, the final arbiters of the
Constitution, the States, were the ones in charge of the ratification of all
treaties. Now, since ideology now takes
precedence over States' Rights in the Senate, we are faced by a number of
draconian treaties . . . and there is nothing the States can do about it.
The appointment of judges,
such as Supreme Court Justices, has also been altered by the passage of the
17th Amendment. Imagine how different
the hearings regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Justices would be if
the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures?
Do you think it would be as
easy for an activist judge to be
appointed?
Do you think the nominees would
be asked questions geared towards the Constitution, and protecting State
Sovereignty?
The people were told that
the States could no longer be trusted in their appointment of the Senators, and
the States got lazy and didn’t wish to participate in that manner anymore. As a result, the 17th Amendment was ratified,
and look at the mess it has caused.
Let’s return to the concept
of “dividing power” for a moment. The
Founding Fathers divided the voting power.
By the States appointing the Senators, it divided the people’s voting
power.
During the early years of
this nation the State legislatures also appointed the Electors for president.
The people only directly
voted into office the Representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives.
This division of voting
power was put into place because the Founding Fathers knew that should the
people be fooled while they completely controlled the vote, a tyranny could
ensure that it was voted into the three primary parts of government: the Executive,
the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. Once tyranny had control of those three parts
of government, the judicial branch would be sure to follow, if not already in collusion with the other two branches.
The Founders knew that
should the uninformed electorate vote in a tyranny, while caught up in some
kind of cult of personality, it would spell the beginning of the end of the
United States as we know it.
The Founding Fathers knew
that democracy of that kind would destroy the system, so they divided the power
of the vote. The voting power was
divided so as to protect us from the excesses of democracy.
Looking back on 2006, 2008,
and 2012 we see an example of exactly what the Founding Fathers warned us
about. A single ideology, one that is
hostile towards the U.S. Constitution, and hostile to the American System,
fooled the people, and took control of some of the most vital parts of
government. The destructive reasoning by
the statists of the Progressive Era for the passage of the 17th Amendment was
fulfilled.
The 17th Amendment, combined
with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the implementation of an income
tax, was all a part of a scheme to change the American System into a model of
socialism through the guise of democracy.
We are not a democracy, and
we were never meant to be a democracy.
The 17th Amendment moved us in that direction. The Founding Fathers continuously spoke out
against the dangers of democracy. They
knew that democracies lead to mob-rule.
As much as the government couldn’t be trusted with too much power,
neither could the voting public.
The Constitution is filled
with checks and balances. Yet, the
people of that time period were fooled so easily by the statists. James Madison five times in his Federalist
Papers writings wrote, “We are a Republic, by which I mean. . .” and then he
would explain what a republic is. He
felt the need to do so because those who opposed the Constitution because they
believed the political system should be one of nationalism argued that
democracy and republicanism were the
same.
Thomas Jefferson said,
“Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those that are willing
to work and give to those who would not.”
John Adams said, “While it
lasts, Democracy becomes more bloody than either an aristocracy or a
monarchy. Democracy never lasts long; it
soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “A
democracy is nothing more than mob-rule, where 51% of the people may take away
the rights of the other 49%.”
James Bovard said,
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
A friend of mine, the late
Tim “Loki” Kerlin, added that a republic is “two wolves, and a well-armed sheep
contesting the vote.”
Benjamin Franklin, after
asked what the Founders created in the Constitutional Convention, replied, “A
republic, if you can keep it.”
With freedom comes
responsibility. It is up to us to repeal
the 17th Amendment.
Terms:
Activist
Judge - A public officer charged with applying the law in order to
administer justice, but also interprets the law, and modifies the law according
to his opinion; a judge who legislates from the bench.
Checks
and Balances - An internal system in government where each part of
government can counter the actions or decisions of the other parts. This arrangement ensures transparency, and
prevents domination of the government by any part.
Collusion -
Conspire together.
Constitutional
Republic - Government that adheres to the rule or authority of
the principles of a constitution. A
representative government that operates under the rule of law.
Democracy - A form
of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that
affect their lives. Such a system
includes equal participation in the proposal, development and passage of
legislation into law.
Direct
Vote - Citizens vote themselves; popular vote.
Ideology - A set
of political or economic ideas that forms the basis of economic or political
theory and policy.
Indirect
Vote - Representatives of Electors vote instead of the citizens. The indirect vote may be based on criteria
that includes the will, or portions of the will, of the citizens; before the
17th Amendment, United States Senators were chosen by an indirect vote of the
people, in which State representatives who attained their office by a direct
vote of the people appointed U.S. Senators to represent their State in
Congress; the President is elected by an indirect vote of the people through electors
who traditionally follow the popular vote of their State, but have the choice
to change that vote if believed to be necessary, and a President may be elected
based on an Electoral majority that does not reflect the national popular vote.
Mob-Rule - A
government ruled by a mob or a mass of people; the intimidation of legitimate
authorities; the tyranny of the majority; pure democracy without due process.
Nationalism -
Political ideology which involves a strong identification of a group of
individuals with a political entity defined in national terms. There are various strands of
nationalism. The ideology may dictate
that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural or
identity group. Nationalism may also
include the belief that the state is of primary importance, which becomes the
unhealthy love of one’s government, accompanied by the aggressive desire to
build that governmental system to a point that it is above all else, and
becomes the ultimate provider for the public good.
Republic - Form
of government that uses the rule of law through a government system led by
representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process. The United States enjoys a Constitutional
Republic.
Republicanism - Rule
by law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted
in by a democratic process. The United
States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.
Separation
of Powers - A division of governmental authority into three
branches: legislative, executive, and judicial; division of powers between the
States and federal government.
Statists -
Individuals that hold that government should control the economic and social
policies of the system it serves.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why are the
originally intended checks and balances so important to safeguarding freedom?
2. What was the
concept of the separation of powers designed to protect against?
3. How does the
Seventeenth Amendment add to the withering away of State Sovereignty?
4. How is
socialism and democracy related?
5. Why would
dividing powers include dividing the voting power of the people?
Resources:
Allison,
Maxfield, Cook, Skousen, The Real Thomas
Jefferson; New
York: National Center for Constitutional Studies
(1983).
David
McCullough, John Adams; New York:
Simon and Schuster
(2001)
Devvy, 36
States Did Not Ratify The 17th Amendment: What Will States
Do?; rense.com, http://www.rense.com/general95/36_dev.htm
Earl
Taylor, Jr., The Seventeenth Amendment and the Destruction of
Federalism; National Center for Constitutional
Studies,
http://www.nccs.net/2013-03-seventeenth-amendment-and-the-destruction-of-federalism.php
James
Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45,
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Jon
Wolverton, II, J.D., 17th Amendment Mudslinging; The New
American (November, 2010) http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7826-17th-amendment-mudslinging
Joseph
Andrews, A Guide for Learning and
Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original
Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San
Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010)
Larry
Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s
History of the United
States; New
York: Sentinel (2004).
Richard
Aynes, On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth
Amendment; Yale Law Journal
(October, 1993) http://www.constitution.org/lrev/aynes_14th.htm
Copyright 2014 Douglas V. Gibbs
No comments:
Post a Comment