Lake Elsinore Constitution Class
Monday, September 5, 2016
C.H.O.B., 119 W. Peck, Lake Elsinore, CA
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 19
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repealed in 1872 and was declared to be unconstitutional, in violation of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