Repealing the 17th Amendment

When Repealing Just Won’t Work

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “The young lady asked me whether or not it would be smart to repeal the 17^th Amendment, whether or not I was in favor.  I said: Absolutely, although I don’t think it would matter.  Now, I used to think that it would matter, but today I don’t think that it would matter, not in the manner in which many of us think or used to think that repealing the 17^th Amendment would matter, that it would radically alter the way things are.  Let me explain.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  We complain mightily here all the time on this show about representation in Congress.  I was trying to explain this to someone yesterday.  I’ll tell you what it was.  A young lady who was doing a term paper – the term paper is about whether or not the 17^th Amendment should be repealed.  Of course it should if you’re going to have any chance at restoring or reviving a federal system, which I don’t think is possible.  I’m going to explain to you why in just a moment.  Plowing through this subject here, we talk about how one member of Congress — there are 435 of them — represents 770,000 to 790,000 constituents, depending on what state and which congressional district.  At the time the Constitution went into effect in 1789, your representation was about one member of the House of Representin’ for about 30,000 to 33,000 inhabitants.  It is totally out of scale.  If we had the scale that the founders lived with, there would be over 8,000 members of Congress.  People say: That’s not workable, you wouldn’t be able to do that.  Exactly, that’s precisely the point.  Again, scale, scale, scale.

There’s another facet to this.  The young lady asked me whether or not it would be smart to repeal the 17^th Amendment, whether or not I was in favor.  I said: Absolutely, although I don’t think it would matter.  Now, I used to think that it would matter, but today I don’t think that it would matter, not in the manner in which many of us think or used to think that repealing the 17^th Amendment would matter, that it would radically alter the way things are.  Let me explain.  I’ll tell you why.  Again, we have to consider and we have to talk about scale.

I told you when I brought this subject up that we’re getting to the illusory notion and actually sorting through this mythology of self-government.  That’s exactly what it is.  Let’s proceed with the experiment, shall we?  Let’s just take California as an example.  Currently California has two members of Congress, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.  Have you looked at California on a map lately?  This is an enormous landmass.  It stretches hundreds upon hundreds of miles down the coast of the Pacific Ocean.  I was looking for the latest population here.  The population of the State of California is 38,802,500.  That is according to the 2014 United States Census estimate.

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

So let’s say the 17^th Amendment is repealed.  After the 17^th Amendment is repealed, then California goes back to choosing its legislators or its United States senators, legislators that represent in the United States Senate, it goes back to choosing them in the California Assembly.  We’ve just begun to put this into perspective and put it into scale.  That would still mean, regardless of who chose them that there would be but two U.S. senators for a population of 38 million people, meaning if we just cut it down the middle, that one senator would represent 19 million people.  You say: Yeah, but Mike, they’re going to choose them in the California Assembly.  The assemblymen are going to choose them.

Let’s ask the next question: Is the assembly in scale?  Is the California Assembly in scale?  How many constituents does a member of the California Assembly represent?  This is another question that’s kind of difficult to get to.  I’ll give you the count.  In the assembly — this is how preposterous this is — there are 80, not 180, not 800, not 8,000, there are 80.  You have 80 representatives representing 38 million people.  Again, does that sound like that’s in scale?  So then, the question is fair to ask: Who then would be practicing self-government even if the assembly got to choose the meager two U.S. senators?

My point to the young lady who asked me the question about repealing the 17^th Amendment, which I’m all for, again, I just don’t think it’ll matter because of what we’re talking about here?  [mocking] “Mitter Church, Mitter Church, what needs to be done?  You need to give solutions.  You always bellyache but never give a solution.”  Okay, I’ll give you a solution.  Many of you in California are actively pursuing this because your instincts are telling you this is what you must do.  As a matter of fact, you people in California would just be better off just being the California Republic.  Divide yourself either into counties or much smaller regions and govern yourself and trade with the rest of us.  You don’t need the rest of us anyway.  You have access to the Pacific Ocean, for Heaven’s sake.  There’s nothing you would gain save the use of the currency, and I think that you could probably work that out that you currently have that you would not be able to have on your own.

The other thing that you might gain if you’re a southern Californian is that you may be able to gain the continued use of the subsidy that the rest of us are socked for through federal taxation and redistribution of wealth.  If you want to say it that way, then say it honestly.  That’s the reason why the Republic of California needs to remain in the union, so they can continue suckling on the rest of our nipples.  Pardon my visual there.  Let’s just ask the next question: If we were to place California in the United Nations, where would it rank?  Folks, it would be in the top twelve countries on the planet.  Would you be able with 38 million people to fund and raise your own army if you needed it?  I’d say so.  What about a navy?  You have all those ports over there.  Do you really need the U.S. Navy?  Couldn’t you have the California Navy?  I would hope with 38 million people that you could.

[/private]

The point of this is, number one, the mythology of self-government.  When we put things into perspective and into scale, it’s just that, mythology.  Number two, the only solutions, if you want to get back and really want to self-govern, and I don’t think people actually understand what self-government is.  It is not this illusion that we practice.  We practice some hybrid of democratic corporatism.  It’s a never-ending race to see who can gain the upper hand to first of all confiscate and then redistribute someone else’s wealth.  That’s what it is.  It’s disguised as representative, but, as I’ve just demonstrated, it’s not, even if you repeal the 17^th

Amendment.

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Thanks for 17 years of mike church.com! – Mike

Folks, you could run the same thought experiment out with any large state.  Run it out with New York.  Run it out with Florida.  Run it out with Texas.  Lots of people in Texas say, [mocking] “We need to repeal that 17^th Amendment.  We’s Texas.  We’ll get our assembly in there and nominate our own two senators.”  Many of you have been weaned from some of your more fantastical dreams about the Republic of Texas after having visited the last two sessions of the assembly in Austin, and having been told, when you present [r]epublican ideas and propositions to those that are allegedly [r]epublicans, [mocking] “Let me tell ya something there, Hoss.  That sounds really good, but, yeah, that’s not gonna happen.  Yeah, I couldn’t even get that out of committee.  I tell ya what.  You see that little fellow over there?  If you go get Billy Bob, if Billy Bob with the ten-gallon hat says yes, he’ll go along with me on it, I’ll write it up and I’ll file it, but it ain’t gonna go anywhere further than me and Billy Bob, but at least there’s be two of us and I ain’t gotta go it alone.”  Out of scale, out of scale, everything is out of scale.  Repealing the 17^th Amendment cannot repair the problem of scale.

End Mike Church Show Transcript