(name of the Utah Representative I am in touch with is blacked out until he is on record that he is working with me)
Constitution Association, Inc.
June 15, 2022
Douglas V. Gibbs
29658 Woodlands Ave.
Murrieta, CA 92563
Member Utah State House of Representatives
Salt Lake City, UT XXXXXX
RE: Restoring Constitutional Republican Form of Government
Dear Representative Lyman,
As per our conversation, June 14, 2022, I would like to recommend a proposal for legislative action as we discussed regarding Utah’s constitutional authority to challenge unconstitutional policies committed against the State of Utah.
The purpose of this letter is to establish what unconstitutional action has occurred, strategies that may be used to correct the injury against the State of Utah, and the procedures recommended to remedy actions that have been unconstitutionally applied to the State.
a letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on June 14, 2021, the Attorney
General of the State of Arizona explained to the head of the U.S. Department of
Justice that Arizona was prepared to “stand ready to defend federalism and
state sovereignty against any partisan attacks or federal overreach.” In his letter Attorney General Mark Brnovich
went on to explain that, “It is important to remember that the states created
the federal government, not the other way around. America’s founders intentionally restrained
the federal government’s constitutional boundaries to ensure each state could
flourish in unique ways.”
Attorney General Brnovich’s argument was regarding a separate issue, elections, his words ring resoundingly
clear when it comes to any issue that the States face in today’s political
environment as our federal government continues to unconstitutionally
centralize its powers and commit unconstitutional acts against each of the sovereign
states that are not only not authorized by the U.S. Constitution, but are
designed to dismantle the republican form of government the Constitution
demands the United States Government shall guarantee to the States in Article
IV., Section 4.
delegates of the States met to create a federal government in Philadelphia
nearly 235 years ago so that they may establish a central government capable of
handling the external issues, and activities required to preserve, protect and
promote the union of states. The
Constitution is a contract of which the States are parties to, including even
the States that may have entered the union after that convention adjourned and
after the Constitution was ratified.
that the federal government may be prone to abuse or misconstruct the powers it
was delegated, and legislate powers it was not authorized, as per the Preamble
of the Bill of Rights the Framers of the Constitution inserted mechanisms that
allowed the State Legislatures to serve as a check against every action the
federal government may take. The
Constitution, as per Article V., may not be amended without a three-quarters
ratification by the States. The
President, as per Article II., may not be elected directly through popular
election, but was instead originally elected by electors appointed by the State
Legislatures. Prior to the ratification
of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 the States paid the income tax to fund the
federal government’s budget, reviewing the budget before agreeing to provide the
funds requested by the general government for its operations. Prior to the Seventeenth Amendment also
ratified in 1913 the States appointed the U.S. Senators to Office, giving the
State Legislatures oversight over the federal legislative process by ensuring
that persons elected by the States’ legislative bodies were participating in
said process. By including themselves in
the legislative process that means the State Legislatures, through the U.S.
Senate, participated in the approval of laws regarding the coining of money,
taxation, all budgetary expenditures, the ratification of treaties through
constitutionally afforded ratification requirements, the confirmation of the
appointment of officers and judges, and others.
In short, the federal government could do nothing without approval by
the State Legislatures, or persons representing the State Legislatures.
almost all of those mechanisms have eroded away by a history of
unconstitutional actions, and the ratification of amendments that would hardly
have been something the Founding Fathers would have approved of.
the case of the Seventeenth Amendment it turns out that the amendment was not
only an amendment that whittles away at the republican form of government, and
literally removes the voice of the States from any and all legislative
decisions at the federal level, but according to the language of the
Constitution the amendment was proposed unconstitutionally, and it is being
expose and remedy the problem I believe that Utah is the key.
I., Section 4, of the United States Constitution states that Congress may not
make or alter “the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.” Yet, the Seventeenth Amendment was proposed
by the U.S. Congress. Therefore, the amendment
was unconstitutionally proposed in the first place. The only proposal of such an amendment would
be legal if the States made the proposal via an Article V. Convention (also
known as a Convention of States).
final clause of Article V. states “that no State, without its Consent, shall be
deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
is one of nine States that never ratified the Seventeenth Amendment. Hawaii and Alaska joined the union after the
ratification of the amendment, six southern States (Virginia, Kentucky, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Mississippi) never ratified it for various
reasons, and finally Utah refused to ratify making a public statement that they
rejected the amendment and pretty much wanted nothing to do with it. Despite the state’s protest, they were
judicially wrangled into accepting, and participating, in the provisions
detailed in the amendment, which means the state legislature could no longer
appoint U.S. Senators, districts based on population would need to be
established and then the Senators would be, and have been, voted in
democratically by the citizens of the State of Utah.
Utah rejected the amendment, that means the State never gave its consent
(except under duress) and therefore has every constitutional authority to defy
the amendment, recall its existing Senators, and resuming appointing U.S.
Senators as originally constitutionally instructed.
Some have argued that equal suffrage has not been denied to the States that never ratified the amendment, the suffrage was simply shifted from the State Legislatures to the voting public. However, if one examines the language used in the Constitution one finds that when the word “State” is used, it is referring to the State Legislature (or the governmental apparatus) rather than the voters. For example:
Amendment X: “…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Article III., Section 2: “…and between a State, or the Citizens thereof…”
has been subjected to unconstitutional coercion by the federal government by
being compelled to participate in the provisions of the Seventeenth Amendment
without Utah’s approval or consent. I
therefore recommend that the Utah Legislature take into consideration the
unconstitutional actions taken against the State by the federal government and
seek to remedy the action by legislative means.
I would also encourage the citizens of Utah to encourage their
legislature to embark on a strategy to defy the Seventeenth Amendment by way of
First Amendment Petitions to their state government for a redress of grievances.
Douglas V. Gibbs
© Copyright Douglas V. Gibbs