(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


Phil Lyman

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.

In 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.”

While 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.

The 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.

Recognizing 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.

Today 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.

In 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 enforced unconstitutionally. 

To expose and remedy the problem I believe that Utah is the key.

Article 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).

The final clause of Article V. states “that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Utah 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.

Since 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…”

Utah 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