When Parliament began to violate their rights, the colonists complained and when their petitions were ignored they took action. When the people in the Northern States believed that the Fugitive Slave Law was unconstitutional, they didn't nullified it. They didn't seek the advice or approval of the Supreme Court.
The states were sovereign and they knew it. The understood that the states were the employer and the central government and all of its branches were the servants.
In order to prevent Congress from stealing the power from the states, the framers of the Constitution added a provision to Article V that guaranteed that no state could be denied its equal suffrage in the senate without their consent,
When the 17th Amendment was ratified by 36 of the 48 states there were 12 states that did not agree to give up their representation in the Senate. Today, there are seven states that have not yet ratified the 17th Amendment and are not obligated to comply with the provision of the 17th Amendment.
The 17th Amendments contradicts the provisions in Article V and I believe that the only states that are required to comply with the 17th Amendment are those that have given their consent by ratifying the 17th Amendment.
The legislatures of the Northern States in the Pre-Civil War decided that the Fugitive Slave Law was wrong so they refused to enforce a law that they felt violated the Constitution and the principles of liberty. They didn't ask the advice of consent of the Supreme Court or Congressional endorsement.
Because the states are sovereign it is the responsibility of the states to prevent the abuse of power by the National govern
The 17th Amendment has not been ratified by the following states and they are not obligated to comply with its provisions
- Utah
- Florida
- Georgia
- Mississippi
- Kentucky
- South Carolina
- Virginia
Replies
I agree that the 17th Amendment was a foolish move. I would like to see it reversed. But, the 17th Amendment is related to States' Rights; therefore, I insist that we are wasting everyone's time by focusing on Amendment 17. The trend in the country is that the States don't want to regain any of their rights, so we must work at the State Governmental level to see if we can put some meaning into the following remark which I clipped from the above post by Mr. Online Professor:
<< Because the states are sovereign it is the responsibility of the states to prevent the abuse of power by the National govern >>>
This statement is pregnant with meaning. It puts the finger on the root of the problem! I insist that I have seen and heard nothing meaningful from any State Government sources to indicate that any State "feels" that it has any sovereign right, or wants any.. What EVIDENCE can anyone post on here to indicate that any State feels that is has any POWER to resist Federal Government Abuse of Power: therefore, how could a State feel a responsibility to curb Fed Gov abuse of power. If any person or entity has no power to act, he surely has no responsibility to act-- on anything. We need a LOT of heavy discussion on the matter of State power and rights before even remotely thinking that this website can do anything positive regarding Constitutional issues.