Jerry O’Neil wants to repeal constitutional right to elect U.S. Senators

Jerry O'Neil is full of bad ideas, but this is one of the worst.This week’s bad idea comes from Jerry O’Neil, who wants to repeal Montanans’ constitutional right to elect our U.S. Senators, and give that choice to the Montana legislature.  He’s tried this twice before, most recently when he served in the legislature in 2005, and it failed miserably.

But that was before the Tea Party took over the Montana GOP.

Oh, and did we mention that he’s running for the legislature again, so he’d be the one doing the choosing.  Here’s O’Neil’s rant against our constitutional right to vote for our Representatives in the United States Senate, from his Tea Party questionnaire:

Our U.S. Senators are no longer beholden to our state legislatures and now must campaign to the entire state populace. This creates a financial burden on the candidates that drives them to seek funding from big corporations, big unions, big media, and big social organizations such as AARP.

Once they are elected they are no longer beholden to states’ rights nor committed to holding the federal government in check; instead they must protect the interests of their big contributors and the social organizations that are seeking a nanny state.

In the 2003 Montana legislative session, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution l0 to repeal the 17th Amendment and thus, once again, allow the State Legislatures to appoint our U.S. Senators. While I was able to get it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I didn’t have enough support to get it out of the Senate.

Not willing to give up on the principle, in the 2005 Montana legislative session, I introduced Senate Bill 464 to allow legislative caucuses to nominate candidates for the U.S. Senate. I wasn’t even able to get SB 464 out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If we let a Tea Party legislature select who should be in the U.S. Senate, we’re going to get Max Baucus and Jon Tester replaced with guys like Mark French.

Posted: August 28, 2010 at 7:15 am

This post was written by Cowgirl

35 thoughts on “Jerry O’Neil wants to repeal constitutional right to elect U.S. Senators

  1. Wulfgar

    O’Neil’s right that the Senate is broken, but repealing the 17th won’t do anything to fix it. That’s just the same tired ‘state’s rights’ trope that the confederate wing of the Republican party has been throwing around since the Southern Strategy. Repealing the 17th Amendment would only exacerbate the problem (as if it could get any worse). The Senate, by design, was to prevent tyranny of the majority in the legislature, the focus being protecting low population slave states from their northern abolitionist cousins. As the nation grew and wealth became concentrated due to resource extraction, the math didn’t scale anymore. Fear of tyranny by majority has become a very real tyranny of the minority. William Andrews Clark flat out bought a Senate seat from the legislature right here in Montana. Enter the 17th amendment.
    What we see now is the same concentration of wealth/power playing out the same way becau8se the Senate was designed to give voice to the minority. 80% of the population has 20% of the representation in the Senate. 6 Senators, Baucus being one of those, were able to derail sweeping societal change favored by the vast majority of Americans. Those six Senators, by the way, rep[resent less than 3% of the population. Senate rules are stacked now such that one Senator can hold majority over that body. Warren Buffett, an amazing philanthropist and ‘liberal’, didn’t need to purchase a Senate seat from the legislature. He just bought himself a Senator, Ben Nelson. On the more evil side, BP and Exxon Mobil have bought Mary Landrieu. Some look at the coincidence of her party (which appears no where on her Senate webpage) and can’t help themselves from blaming the party for her obstruction. It’s not the party; it’s the structure. All O’Neil wants to do is return to the honest days of William Andrews Clark, when our Senators could buy their own seats, rather than the rich have to purchase someone ‘electable’. The end result is the same. The Senate is broken, not by party, but by it’s very design.

  2. Farmboy

    Obviously Mr. O’Neil has not studied his Montana history, cause if he would he would discover that the direct election of US Senators was a result of the Montana politics in the 1890’s under the copper kings. Back then there was a fued between Marcus Daly and William A. Clark two of the kings of Butte that were buy the votes of our state representatives and state senators to get their guy in the US Senate. I believe that this idea in todays society would give coporations that are now no longer even American but mulit national way too much power in American politics and they already have enough power with corporate citizenship as diffined by the US Supreme Court this summer so please no more coporate give aways of our political power to coporate citzens, they have enough power

    1. Ilikewoods

      Farmboy, you are absolutely right! It was Montana politics that caused the change in how senators were elected. I believe in today’s society, the best way to stop corporate power from taking over, is to limit the time a person can be a senator. They should have term limits just like the president does. That way, no one gets a chance to become as corrupt in the senate and in the legislature as they do now. Secondly, and most importantly, when we start people who were mayors working themselves up to Montana politics and then into national politics, we need to keep a better grassroots overwatch on them. Somewhere along the line, they get greedy. Watching politicians a little more closely, well make them less susceptible to corporate greed.

  3. Jack Ruby

    JErry just wants to go back to the old way so he can get a little palm greasing for choosing a Senator before he gets termed out. It would probably be more lucrative than his fall back job as an unlicensed attorney.

  4. Mark T

    I tend to support him on this notion – the original US Constitution was not what we would call a “democratic” document. The president was elected by the Electoral College, which still exists as kind of an anachronism, but which could alter the will of the electorate if it so chose to do so.

    Voting was limited to men, but up to the states, but most imposed property tests.

    Judges were appointed by the president and approved by the Senate.

    The only body directly answerable to “the people” was the House of Representatives.

    Senators became directly elected during the progressive era, as the appointment route was utterly corrupt. But as can be seen, it was no fix. We still get third-rate men and women who are in the pockets of wealth.

    Still, I tend to favor appointment of at least one body in the Congress of the US, if for no other reason than to remove it somewhat from the ebb and flow of politics, the emotions of crowds, the shortsightedness of the public.

    Since the advent of universal franchise, public relations has taken over elections, and they are mostly a sham.

  5. James Conner

    “Jerry O’Neill doesn’t trust your judgment. He wants to choose your U.S. Senators for you. Why? Because he wants your senators accountable only to 150 legislators instead of accountable to one million Montanans; accountable to me and you.

    “If you don’t trust your own judgement, vote for Jerry O’Neill. He’ll have government choose for you.

    “But if your judgment is sound, if you want to keep your right to choose your U.S. Senators directly, vote for Zac Perry on November 4th. Zac Perry will protect your right to choose for yourself.”

    Perry’s a Democrat. Anyone think a Democrat would carpet bomb a Republican on this issue?

  6. Mark T

    Cowgirl: Please tell us why appointment of Senators by the state legislatures is a bad thing. Please tell us why direct election of senators is a good thing. To this point, you’ve only said that it is so, but offered no reasoning beyond the vague notion that the fact that we get to vote in referendums for Senators has to be good because voting is good.

    Please dig a little deeper.

  7. Ele

    Thank you Mark T. That’s the same question I had. It seems that most of our elected “servants” display that same “mistrust” of the peoples judgment. Aren’t they ignoring the people regarding the stimulus deals? Health reform? Just to name two.

    1. Wulfgar

      Ele, I’m sorry but you’re not making sense. If

      most of our elected “servants” display that same “mistrust” of the peoples judgment

      then how could it possibly improve the situation to put those “servants” in charge of picking other “servants”, removing another layer of the will of the people? What you’ve just called for is putting a class of people you think so little of that you put them in “scare quotes” in charge picking others of the people’s representatives. At the very least, it’s counter-intuitive, and counter-productive. When the legislature picks “servants”, those “servants” serve the legislature, yes? How does this possibly return control to the people?

  8. Jack Ruby

    Seems like a no-brainer to me. What is the upside of going back to appointment by the legislature? Its going to create a few dozen Blagoevich wannabes every six years: “Ive got this thing and its golden Im not giving it away for nothing.” I dont see how such a process would not invite the return of corruption. I would prefer to have my own vote still count for something and have it under my own control. Senators would still be subject to the ‘whims of the crowd’ and day to day politics under an appointment system but it would neccesarily be the politics and whims of the state legislature..which is exactly what whacknut Oneil wants. I see no benefit to that and I definitely dont think the public in general is anymore shortsighted or prone to emotional reactions then our esteemed state legislature.

  9. Dick Marple

    Lets see now, the country had the states rights to elect their senators up from 1789 until 1913. Yep, 124 years and all went well. If a sour senator got elected and did not protect the states rights, and voted in Washington against the will of the people, the legislature, representing the people that elected him, could recall him immediately. As it is now we the people have to put up with bought and paid for senators for six years! The states no longer have any representation in Washington.

    Now for those who want to toy with syntax, tell me what is the difference between a Senator of the United States and a united States Senator? Having a problem? Well check out the Government Style Manual. The sheeple have much to learn.

    1. Wulfgar

      Lets see now, the country had the states rights to elect their senators up from 1789 until 1913. Yep, 124 years and all went well.

      Okay, okay. So there was that pesky little bloodiest conflict in American history thingie, but why let facts ruin a good, if completely ignorant, teabagger rant?

      As it is now we the people have to put up with bought and paid for senators for six years!

      Yeah, Sheeple! Don’t you long for the days when William Andrews Clark (and others) could just purchase the seat outright from a hundred, as opposed to poor Meg Whitman having to buy it from millions? You’re going to let a little math get in the way of “state’s rights”?

      Well check out the Government Style Manual.

      Sold at many bookstores everywhere, authored by Glenn Beck. But don’t look for it. Yeah … it’s probably, yeah … sold out. That’s it. It’s sold out. I’m sure they’ll get more next week. Just check back. Or look in the abnormal psychology section. There might be a copy hanging out there. The Forward is written by Dick Marple!

      1. Dick Marple

        Guess Wolfgar can’t find google on his puter, so let me help out. Here tis…

        Advanced search
        About 555,000 results (0.44 seconds)
        Search Results

        1.
        U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual (2008) 30th Edition …
        Apr 16, 2009 … U.S. Government Style Manual (2008), 30th Edition … Style Board Extract from Title 44, U.S.C.. About This Manual …
        http://www.gpoaccess.gov › … › US GPO Style Manual – Cached – Similar
        2.
        U.S. GPO Style Manual: Main Page
        Apr 23, 2009 … The US Government Printing Office Style Manual, provides comprehensive information on form and style for printing and binding, …
        http://www.gpoaccess.gov › Legislative Branch – Cached – Similar
        Show more results from http://www.gpoaccess.gov.

        Now be a good little boy and do y0ur homework !

        1. Wulfgar

          Oh my God! Ms. Marple thought it was making a point about construct when wailing about content and it’s my bad that it’s an idiot! I feel so ashamed!

          What you wrote went well beyond what you attempted to mean, Ms. Marple.

  10. Mark T

    If we had informed debate and voted after, then voting would be an important way for people to express popular will.

    As it is, the only result of voting is that we change leaders on a regular basis, and while that is very important, if there is only one party, then the change is essentially meaningless.

    If that is the case, then appointment by the legislature would be an improvement in that it would remove the office, to some degree, from the meaningless propaganda that substitutes for informed debate.

    So it seems to me that appointment has good arguments in its favor, and that O’Neil is on the right track.

    1. Wulfgar

      Uhhh, Mark? I know you’re ‘obvious challenged’ so I’ll be gentle here. You didn’t present one thing that shows appointment as an improvement over the status quo of the 17th amendment. You just keep reiterating that the status quo doesn’t work to your satisfaction. Yet you keep claiming that “appointment has good arguments in its favor” when the only argument you have is “that it would remove the office, to some degree, from the meaningless propaganda that substitutes for informed debate” into a forum where “the meaningless propaganda that substitutes for informed debate” would be … smaller.

      Now, here’s the really obvious part. You keep demanding that others justify their positions, but you’ve done a poor job yourself. I’m certain that you didn’t mean to, and that you can rise to the occasion now that your blinders have been so gently pointed out. So please tell us exactly how a bunch of folks elected from the fruits of meaningless propaganda are more capable of avoiding meaningless propaganda in appointing others to position, without meaningless propaganda? I await your instruction …

    2. Mark T

      There’s a rumor going round that I follow you around and annoy you. I think you are the one spreading it.

      Appointment over election makes little difference in a corrupt system save for the argument that I made above, that appointment would remove the position from the pressure of everyday politics, which are subject to the emotions of the moment.

      It would most likely be subject to the same corruption that bedevils the electoral system, but cannot be worse.

      Now, go play with your friends. If you have any.

  11. Wulfgar

    Mark, you made no such argument. You simply shifted blame, as you yourself admit. I’ve no interest in the personal stuff. For what it’s worth, I’ve already beaten you. So why duke that out again?

    You’ve claimed that “Appointment over election makes little difference in a corrupt system save for the argument that I made above” which is an argument you’ve never made. This is the extent of your argument:

    Still, I tend to favor appointment of at least one body in the Congress of the US, if for no other reason than to remove it somewhat from the ebb and flow of politics, the emotions of crowds, the shortsightedness of the public.

    You favor. Your emotions; your favor. That’s not an argument, Mark. It’s your ego. As I’ve politely asked, please clarify how “the ebb and flow of politics the emotions of crowds, the shortsightedness of the public” is removed by giving power to those elected by “the ebb and flow of politics the emotions of crowds, the shortsightedness of the public” Can you do that, Mark? It’s a simple question. Do you have an answer? Can you do that, Mark?

    1. Mark T

      As usual, you are tedious,your prose dense, and the effort required to make things clear to you is hardly justified. This is not my shortcoming.

      And before I start, if anyone else reads this, please note that I was minding my own business, and was approached by Dr. Kailey, per usual. He will say later that I follow him around, but I do not.

      Rather than refer you back to the comment where, in your black/white mind, things were not made clear as a mountain spring for you, I will paste:

      As it is, the only result of voting is that we change leaders on a regular basis, and while that is very important, if there is only one party, then the change is essentially meaningless.

      If that is the case, then appointment by the legislature would be an improvement in that it would remove the office, to some degree, from the meaningless propaganda that substitutes for informed debate.

      So it seems to me that appointment has good arguments in its favor, and that O’Neil is on the right track.

      Got that? Changing leaders, even when done by an uninformed electorate, is still an important function in a democracy. However, and this is important, so please perk up the ears, when both parties are controlled by the same concentrated power, voting does not produce a change in leadership. That is an illusion.

      ERGO …

      Appointment over election makes little difference in a corrupt system save for the argument that I made above, that appointment would remove the position from the pressure of everyday politics, which are subject to the emotions of the moment.

      It would most likely be subject to the same corruption that bedevils the electoral system, but cannot be worse.

      See? Marginal improvement, hardly worth the trouble, but still and improvement, much like being a Democrat, so surely you understand.

      Now, again, friends. Or bowl alone … whatever you do. If you want to fantasize that you have “beaten me” as the ball rolls down the lane, by all means, do so.

    1. Wulfgar

      Settled? Not by a long shot. Done, probably. That is until someone explains how voting by the people is “subject to the emotions of the moment.” And yet, voting by the members of the legislature, who are elected because people vote “subject to the emotions of the moment” is most certainly not “subject to the emotions of the moment.”

      Simply put, in the minds of some, the populace is capable of voting for Rick Jore, Scott Sales, John Sinrud, Roger Koopman, and other assorted crazies to the state legislature. But the populace is not capable of changing seats enough for some, even though the populace removed Conrad Burns for Jon Tester. Apparently, in the twisted minds of those who think Tester the same as Burns, but worship change anyway, such a weighty decision as that should be left to the likes of Sinrud, Sales, Koopman, Jore, Taylor Brown (tell ‘em all Taylor sent ‘ya!), Ed Butcher, Jerry O’Neil …

      Let’s be very clear about this. Mark was disagreeing with the post *not* because he actually has a point. He doesn’t, obviously. If Mark actually cared about legislative turn-over, he would be an advocate of term-limits, something he’s advocated online … wait, let me check … never. Mark was dissenting simply to be disagreeable, and impress the Cowgirl with his overwhelming intellectual musk. I challenged him on the very points of the post. Should we as people accept a repeal of a Constitutional right just to favor a non-established benefit of turning our choices over to questionable others? No. No we shouldn’t. Cowgirl was exactly spot on with this post. Does that settle it? No, not while O’Neil is still running. Does that make this done? You decide.

      1. Mark T

        Vote by legislators is one step removed from the heat of politics. It is why the founders opted for an electoral college, and why federal judges are appointed by one branch and confirmed by another, whose members were appointed by yet another body.

        It all originates with a vote somewhere, but each step removed away from individual votes. I really don’t care about your opinions about the people that Montanans send to legislature, but can say with some assurance that when they are not posturing for the electorate, that they are more reasonable than they sound when they run for office. At least I always found that to be the case in Billings.

        You have to remember that politicians do not campaign to individual voters, but rather to groups of voters, and that groups are distinct from individuals, do not think well, are subject to the emotions of the moment and cannot think long-term. The founders seemed to understand this, even though the science would not be explored until the 19th century.

        Your reasoning is linear and predictable and you seem incapable of dealing with nuance. Over the past months you have repeatedly approached me, and after having re-worded something I said and then dense-prosing it, demanded that I “answer the question” you asked. But your questions are like pretzels. If only they had a little salt … they’d be interesting.

        There’s no rocket science going on here. I’m just mudding up your cherished ideals a bit. I’m more a realist than you.

  12. Wulfgar

    Vote by legislators is one step removed from the heat of politics.

    No Mark, it isn’t. As you argue, legislators are corporate funded, hence they are one step closer to the heat of politics.

    It all originates with a vote somewhere, but each step removed away from individual votes.

    And you still fail to explain why this is a ‘good thing’, save that voters are removed from control. Are you seriously arguing that voters are not to be trusted and those they elect are? Yes, in fact. Yes, that is exactly what you argue.

    I really don’t care about your opinions

    And I don’t really care about your opinion either. What I do care about is your argumentative contradiction that you simply won’t address.

    Your reasoning is linear and predictable and you seem incapable of dealing with nuance.

    Excuse me, but your puppy tried that over at ECW and got his ass handed to him because it is pompous and not true. Just as you attempt the same weak sauce here.

    Over the past months you have repeatedly approached me, and after having re-worded something I said and then dense-prosing it, demanded that I “answer the question” you asked.

    Mark, I used your exact words. Answer the question. Or not, as I know you won’t.

    I’m more a realist than you.

    Thus your delusions are proven. Find 3 people who agree with that statement, Mark. I dare you. You aren’t realistic. You want to change the Constitution for no reason that you’ve been able to support. You’re trolling a website just because you feel important for doing so. Realist? You’re a hack, and a poor one at that.

  13. Jerry O'Neil

    The justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, in Garcia v. San Antonio, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), decided that any contention between the Tenth Amendment’s protection of State’s rights and the Commerce Clause’s expansion of Federal power would be resolved in favor of the Commerce Clause’s expansion of the Federal Government’s power.

    In Garcia the Court, rather than basing its decision on Article I, Section 8 limiting the Federal Government’s functions to the specified powers, switched the concept and based its decision on the premise that Article I, Section 8 does not confine the federal government’s powers, but just removes those specified powers from the States. In Garcia, the Court stated:

    We doubt that courts ultimately can identify principled constitutional limitations on the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause powers over the States merely by relying on a priori definitions of state sovereignty. In part, this is because of the elusiveness of objective criteria for “fundamental” elements of state sovereignty, a problem we have witnessed in the search for “traditional governmental functions.” There is, however, a more fundamental reason: the sovereignty of the States is limited by the Constitution itself. A variety of sovereign powers, for example, are withdrawn from the States by Article I, § 10. Section 8 of the same Article works an equally sharp contraction of state sovereignty by authorizing Congress to exercise a wide range of legislative powers and (in conjunction with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI) to displace contrary state legislation.

    In 1913 Congress and the American voters unwittingly limited competition between the states when they added the 17th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution thus taking away the state legislatures’ control of our U.S Senators and placing such control directly with the people. Our U.S. Senators are no longer beholden to our state legislatures and now must campaign to the entire state populace. This creates a financial burden on the candidates that drives them to seek funding from big corporations, big unions, big media, and big social organizations such as AARP. Once they are elected they are no longer beholden to states’ rights nor committed to holding the federal government in check; instead they must protect the interests of their big contributors and the social organizations that are seeking a nanny state.

    Also in 1913 Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act with the purpose of making money elastic, promising to stabilize the business cycle and prevent future depressions. Actually the Federal Reserve Act took the honesty out of our money and increased the swings of the business cycle. Along with allowing the Great Depression and our present monetary problems, I expect it has made some bankers and Wall Street brokers very wealthy. The Federal Reserve Act has contributed to the demise of states’ rights by its giving the Federal Government the power to issue rubber checks to pay for gifts and services to the public.

    It appears to me we need to start paying down the national debt if we want to save our constitutional republic. The other alternative is to continue enjoying the federal largess and the elevated standard of living we are now enjoying until our credit is completely gone. If history can be used as a guide, at that point we will be ruled by an oligarchy and our standard of living will be dismal. In order to contain the resulting riots, our rulers will then be as overbearing as the rulers of China and Russia and other totalitarian regimes have been historically.

    Between Garcia v. San Antonio, the Seventeenth Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act, State’s rights are now comatose.

    In order to pay down our national debt we need to put a limit on federal spending. To accomplish this we need honest money plus competition between the states.

    1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!

      Jumpin’ JEEbus, Jer, if you want to SPOUT like a lawyer, please do us the favor of at LEAST getting your ass through law school, dude! Or are you too incompetent? I’m thinkin’ yes. What do you think?

    2. Ilikewoods

      Dear Jerry, you know the reason the supreme court stated that, because it was written in the founders papers. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, hated giving states any rights outside the Federal government, because certain states tried a multitude of times to oppress other states, and set up their own monies systems to do business. This is why, Federal law supersedes state law. To protect those people, and businesses who found themselves confused about various state laws not being the same. American voters did not unwittingly limit competition between the states. Our forefathers did. I love it when you republicans, try to infuse your own view… in what has always been the simple plain language of the constitution.

  14. Mark T

    Then go back to the beginning where I said:

    Appointment over election makes little difference in a corrupt system save for the argument that I made above, that appointment would remove the position from the pressure of everyday politics, which are subject to the emotions of the moment.

    You are obtuse. I don’t know what happened over at ECW, but I presume you had one of your imaginary vindications, as you are prone to do.

    You really know nothing of politics. Nothing. Now, I am going to take you back to 4&20 where I needled you just a bit, easily done, and got this in return:

    “GD dumb … goddamned blind …arrogant jackass …shriveled little toad … asshole …asshole … asshole … asshole … moron … fricking troll.”

    You have trouble controlling your emotions. Probably hurt you in many ways that did not make it to your post about how brilliant you were as a student. You’re doing OK here because you know you are being tested. But it’s there. You are seething. Let it go, Rod. Let it go. Tell me what you think of me.

  15. Moorcat

    First, Jerry, you aren’t helping your case much. You are coming off sounding pretty hard core right wingnut and since that is kind of the take the original article suggested, you are simply proving them right.

    Second, you should have stuck to the subject of the original poster instead of trying to make a campaign speech. Again, you come off as the worst of the worst of the Tea Baggers. By being offtopic, you also insult the blog owner. You want Campaign time, buy it. Others do.

    Third, (and back on topic), it appears that your argument with the 17th amendment can be boiled down to “Campaign Financing”. You essencially state that, since the person is to be elected by “the people”, they must accept money from “big corporations, big unions, big media, and big social organizations such as AARP”. That is a completely unsupported statement and until you back it up, the rest of your rant kind of fails the “smell test”. Further, your responce also makes it clear that you don’t think us lowly people have the ability or intellegence to decide for ourselves who to elect.

    Fourth, my other big issue with your rant about how Senators is elected, is that you seem to think that a state representative would be a better “elector” than “We, the people”. What makes a State Representative better? How is Rick Jore, or “Give them Hell, Lange” better than me? What makes you think that the big corporate interests won’t still be financing the campaigns of the people running for State Senator?

    You, Sir, come across as a very dangerous and lower functioning Wingnut. You, Sir, give Conservatives a bad name.

  16. Jack Ruby

    Hey at least Jerry got to insert some federal reserve conspiracy theories too. The federal reserve conspiracy theorists aka gold standard wingnuts always ignore the economic history that led to the need for and creation of a central bank. Hey Jerry, how many depressions and financial panics did our nation experience before we created the federal reserve? How many since?

  17. Charles

    (See site linked, start page, to see what your President is a member of, and no one in the media mentions it; only the media kingpins know because they’re members).
    Alden Freeman appeared in the 1914 leaked list of The Pilgrims, the world’s premier financial organization (Gallatin County Montana is named after one of the represented families, other members owned the Anaconda Mine). Freeman’s father was once treasurer for Standard Oil Company, majority owned by the Rockefellers, with others involved including the Harknesses, Pratts, Whitneys, Folgers etc—all Pilgrims Society represented groups. Freeman Jr., once with Seaboard National Bank, became a newspaper publisher in New Jersey and was the national spearhead activist campaigning for the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provided for the direct election of Senators from the states to Capitol Hill. Previously Senators were selected by the state legislatures, insuring state and local control over the Senate. The 17th Amendment allowed Wall Street (read—“The Pilgrims Society”) to seize direct control over enough Senators as to gain a whip hand over national United States policy! Thorkelson Congressman from Montana entered details in the Congressional Record of 1940 on this most dangerous organization of all history.

Comments are closed.