Help support alternative media by visiting our Allies

Selkirk Mountain Real Estate

Founders / Framers Minute: Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2

“The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.”

Founders / Framers Minute: Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2

Founders / Framers Minute 8:

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2

“Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.”

by Cornel Rasor

Fisher Ames observed during the Massachusetts ratifying convention that “The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.” Even so, there was concern over the proposed 6 year term of senators. That 6 year term, already discussed, formed the basis for the three classes mentioned.

Once the concerns about a perpetual body that would assume the characteristics of an aristocracy were somewhat alleviated, the convention then settled on the method of the first senate election. Providing for a rotation that would leave many sitting senators in office would prevent the loss of institutional memory and process.

The longer term, older citizenship age and greater age reflected the desire for a more stable body that engaged in a different set of enumerated responsibilities requiring more trust. Madison said in Federalist 62:

“A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative, must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust; which requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education.”

Finally, any vacancies would be effected by the Governor of the state until the state legislature so deprived, met to fill the vacancy.1


1  Changed by the 17th Amendment.


Founders / Framers Minute 1: Article I, Section 1

Founders / Framers Minute 2: Article I, Section 2, Clause 1-2

Founders / Framers Minute 3: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3a

Founders / Framers Minute 4: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3b

Founders / Framers Minute 5: Article I, Section 2, Clause 4

Founders / Framers Minute 6: Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

Founders / Framers Minute 7: Article I, Section 3, Clause 1


Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:

2 Comments on Founders / Framers Minute: Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2

  1. “Once the concerns about a perpetual body that would assume the characteristics of an aristocracy were somewhat alleviated, the convention then settled on the method of the first senate election. Providing for a rotation that would leave many sitting senators in office would prevent the loss of institutional memory and process.”

    Once again a meeting of the minds of aristocrats is the crime scene being commented upon in the quote above, and once the assembled aristocrats have somewhat alleviated their concerns over their aristocratic senate being aristocratic, they then moved on to other concerns.

    They had more than a few opponents show up to the fraudulent, secret, meeting. How could the aristocrats avoid having plebeian lowlifes show up to their secret meeting when they had to advertise their secret meeting? The aristocrats forming an aristocracy advertised their secret meeting with a call to all governing members of independent states, or at least calling upon the aristocrats in those independent states, calling for some alterations to the agreement. Those are the states formed by agreement into a voluntary mutual defense association. The same agreement that was made so as to form a federation is the agreement that did not afford the governors of the federation arbitrary power. The agreement did not give anyone the power to use the power given to exceed the power given, to arbitrarily replace the agreement with a counterfeit version of an agreement. The strict boundaries of power given in the agreement did not include the power to arbitrarily replace the agreement with something disagreeable such as arbitrary government.

    The aristocrats advertised the need to assemble so as to fix, to alter, to improve, to adjust, or to amend the existing federation. That was the federation that was in power when that federal power, made up of all those free minded liberty lovers, and some very powerful aristocrats, drove out the largest invading army for profit that was then running amok, rioting in the blood of the innocent, on the planet Earth: a belligerent, arbitrary, criminal aristocracy, operating under the color of law.

    The assembled aristocrats did not advertise their intent to remove and replace the federation, replacing the federation with absolute power in their aristocratic hands. That type of advertisement, a true account of their aristocratic intentions, would spill the beans. So some of the plebs, or aristocrats attempting to represent plebs, showed up to do some fixing: to improve the existing federation of independent states formed into a voluntary mutual defense association, and those representatives who showed up to improve the voluntary federation were in for a rude awakening.

    Those in opposition were gagged, the plebes were gagged. The gag order was in place because witnesses (representatives not representing aristocrats) at the crime scene are inspired to inform the intended victims of their pending enslavement: spilling the beans. If the gag order does not work, what are aristocrats inspired to do? Shoot the messenger! Dead men tell no tails, just ask Martin Luther King Jr., or Lavoy Finicum.

    Gag orders no longer work?

    “One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.”
    Luther Martin, Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787

    We were all taught that important message in plebe school, right?

    As to the aristocratic Senate:

    “The senators will represent sovereignties, which generally have, and always ought to retain, the power of recalling their agents; the principle of responsibility is strongly felt in men who are liable to be recalled and censured for their misconduct; and, if we may judge from experience, the latter will not abuse the power of recalling their members; to possess it, will, at least be a valuable check.”
    Federal Farmer, LETTER XI.
    JANUARY 10, 1788.
    Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled)

    Senators representing a profitable monopoly, aristocrats representing their aristocracy, are not the same thing as senators representing independent states or independent people.

    If the Independent States (sovereign states) were in fact sovereign, then they could pay for, or not pay for, a stake at the table where governors govern the voluntary mutual defense association: federation. If it is an entirely different government, not a federation, one that is covertly put in place, then the governors governing the profitable monopoly will demand payments from all their slaves: or else. Don’t even think about complaining. Sovereigns can hire or fire their employees at will, or they will not be sovereigns. Aristocrats issue gag orders, and shoot messengers, or they will fail to maintain their aristocracy.

    “Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted – as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.” A Farmer, New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism

    Aristocrats are interested in preserving their slave trade that has many forms, how does one become an aristocrat after all?

    The so-called aristocrats, claiming to alter, adjust, or fix the existing federation (their source of authority that gave no authority to remove and replace the federal government) were in fact perpetrating the crime of treason: they went outside the law that gave them authority, and they replaced the voluntary mutual defense association with a profitable monopoly, including the subsidizing of their African Slave trade with a National Tax which also creates the demand for their Central Bank Fraud, and to ensure their aristocratic ability to make war on any people in any state who dare to run away from their slavery, and to ensure that the aristocrats in command of their aristocracy fund their power to make their targets pay for the cost of the war on the people, that National Tax serves that interest too.

    “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

    How’s that for a declaration of dependence?

    Damn history repeats for obvious, predicted, reasons.

  2. “The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.”

    State sovereignty is proven as a fact when a State, not a National Government, can agree to join or unjoin, pay for, or not pay for, a voluntary mutual defense association (federation) under the common law. Individuals are represented by themselves, and the best way for the whole number of people (res-publica) to be represented is through trial by jury according to the common law. Electoral politics was known to be anti-democratic, and electoral politics was known to lead to oligarchy.

    From the Federal Farmer, against the Con Con Con Job, who was a President of the United States of America when those states were Federated, which was before those states were Consolidated into one despotic oligarchy under summary justice “courts:”

    “In the civil law process the trial by jury is unknown; the consequence is, that a few judges and dependant officers, possess all the power in the judicial department. Instead of the open fair proceedings of the common law, where witnesses are examined in open court, and may be cross examined by the parties concerned — where council is allowed, &c. we see in the civil law process judges alone, who always, long previous to the trial, are known and often corrupted by ministerial influence, or by parties. Judges once influenced, soon become inclined to yield to temptations, and to decree for him who will pay the most for their partiality. It is, therefore, we find in the Roman, and almost all governments, where judges alone possess the judicial powers and try all cases, that bribery has prevailed. This, as well as the forms of the courts, naturally lead to secret and arbitrary proceedings — to taking evidence secretly– exparte, &c. to perplexing the cause — and to hasty decisions: — but, as to jurors, it is quite impracticable to bribe or influence them by any corrupt means; not only because they are untaught in such affairs, and possess the honest characters of the common freemen of a country; but because it is not, generally, known till the hour the cause comes on for trial, what persons are to form the jury.” Federal Farmer 15, January 18, 1788

    And from democratic (real, not fraudulent) history:

    The Athenian Constitution:
    Government by Jury and Referendum
    “The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.

    “Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.

    “That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority.”

    The slave traders, central banking frauds, warmongers, and assorted other criminals took over in 1789. It is never to late for an accurate accounting of the facts that matter.

Comments are closed.