Let me start at the beginning, the American Revolution has just concluded and England has realized that they cannot squash the young republic with military might. So they went to the usual bag of tricks for politicians, honors and privilege. Though titles of nobility were prohibited by both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778), the Founding Fathers saw a considerable loophole. A loophole that today has given us Sir Rudy Giuliani, Sir Colin Powell and Sir Ronald Reagan. It also had a secondary purpose, which would have an astounding today: w3f/... In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the librarys oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendments language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this missing 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. So began a seven-year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the missing 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous. So what is in this mystery 13th Amendment: If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them. For those who want hard evidence, I offer up the Constitution of the United States of America, printed in 1825 in Portland, Maine: If you want to verify this document, go here: Maine State Archives State Capitol - Station 84 Augusta, ME 04333-0084 (207)287-5295 [email protected] Now the reason lawyer would have been prohibited is because the International Bar Association was charted by the King of England and headquartered in London. So any American lawyer who uses the term Esquire would be in violation of the Constitution, Article 1, Sect. 9. But since there was no penalty for this, it was largely ignored. This would also be pretty defunct today, as most of our lawyers belong to the ABA, or American Bar Association, so only fools who belong to the IBA would fall under this domain. So basically, unless you accept a foreign title, say Knight, you will not be affected and forced to forfeit your citizenship. But back to this lost Amendment, I bet you are asking, was it ever ratified? Well, here is what I found: There were 17 states in 1810, so 13 needed to ratify it: Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810 Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811 Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811 Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811 Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811 New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811dailykos/story/2007/7/10/155241/107 Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811 Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811 Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811 North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811 Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812 New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812 This makes 12. Then the War of 1812 broke out, and Washington burned to the ground, and all our documents with it. But we won, of course, and we finally got back on track and according to Congressional Records on December 31, 1817 the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe find out about the status of the Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislatures position. (House Document No. 76). On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. So it all comes down to Virginia. There was no West Virginia at this point, keep that in mind. On March 10, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, misc. file, p. 299 for micro-film): Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the United States and the amendments thereto... This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendments official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819. That makes 13, and is officially in the Constitution. So besides the Maine, and Virginia evidence, who else printed the now missing 13th Amendment? War Dept. Document from 1825 Reveals Critical Clue to Missing 13th Amendment By The Idaho Observer ( I know, I know, quite a source PT!) proliberty/... KANSAS CITY -- The Comfort Inn here was the third stop for Freedom Drive, 2002, and the place where Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) researcher Suzanne Nevling of San Francisco, California produced a copy of Military Laws of the United States to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United States. The book, published under authority of the War Department in 1825, proves that the original 13th Amendment that prohibits Americans from holding Titles of Nobility, was part of the Constitution until it was mysteriously replaced with a new 13th Amendment that banned slavery after the Civil War. When we found this book last September we knew that we had found that the original 13th Amendment was part of the Constitution as of 1825, Nevling said. Previous TONA research proves that on March 12, 1819, Virginia became the 13th and final state required for ratification of the original 13th Amendment when it published in the laws of Virginia Act No. 280 as passed by its legislature. TONA research has shown that the state of Virginia forwarded copies of its revised code to the Department of State, the Congress, the Library of Congress and the President. So, what about hardcopy? Ok. Here is the Military Laws of the United States, 1825: It appears again in 1840, in a Citizens Handbook: Colorado has it as late as 1867: Kansas, 1868, including the 13th Anti-Slavery Amendment listed at 14: The True Republican, a book published in 1841: The Constitution - Federalist of 1862: The Whig Almanac - 1845: There are many more. Then something happened. Mainly, a Civil War. After the Civil War, this Amendment was basically dropped down the memory hole, finding the 13th Amendment we know, and love, in its place. That was declared ratified on December 18, 1865, which would explain why Colorado and Kansas have our current day 13th Amendment as the 14th Amendment. Very, very odd. So to find a counterpoint, I thought a lawyer site would be the best, and I find a good rebuttal: thirdamendment/... Even if Virginia ratified the amendment at any time during the ratification process, the amendment did not become part of the Constitution, because the amendment was never just one state away from this threshold. If Virginia ratified in 1819, as extremists claim, the ratification came far too late to matter. When the amendment was submitted to the states in 1810, 13 ratifications were required; Louisiana was admitted to the Union on April 30, 1812, raising the required number of ratifications to 14. Prior to that date the amendment had received only 11 ratifications New Hampshire ratified on December 9, 1812, raising the total number of ratifications to 12 out of the needed 14. But Indiana was admitted on December 11, 1816, raising the required number of ratifications to 15. Mississippis admission on December 10, 1817, did not change the threshold, but Illinoiss admission on December 3, 1818 raised the threshold to 16. The extremist claim that these later states are not relevant, because an amendment only needs the support of three-fourths of the states in existence when it was submitted to the states. History reveals this claim to be specious - and this fact was known at the time the amendment was under consideration. Whenever someone calls someone else an extremist, its usually because they are right about something that someone fears coming to light. But anyway, he has a valid point about Indiana, Mississippi and Illinois. But that goes back to when Virginia actually ratified it, as opposed to telling everyone they had. Seems odd they would forget that they had updated the Law of the Land, but modes of communication were a lot slower back then. But what seems even odder is all the publications that include this 13th Amendment, all the way up to 1868. To bad everyone involved has been dead and buried for over 150 years now, so we will never know the truth. But if it existed, as much evidence points that it did, then it is still part of the law of the land and valid today. Either way, makes for a hell of a story. But going back to why they include this, in basically that they felt Article 1, Section 9 might not be tough enough: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. And to that effect, I give you Knight of the British Empire Rudy Giuliani, obviously a rogue to the intent and language of the Constitution. I expect him to be deported in a fortnight as a rogue for the British Empire for subverting the law of the land in the name of a foreign power, you know, the one we fought our Revolution against. Just thought Id share. Originally posted to pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:35 PM PDT. Tags Constitution History Poll The story of the missing 13th Amendment is: an interesting side note to American history. the bane of Constitutional Law grad students. best saved for your 1:45 a.m. call to Art Bell. proof that lawyers run this country. | 4385 votes | Results Comment Preferences expand shrink hide Auto Refresh? 92 comments | Permalink * [new] So, I wonder what else is in our memory hole. (27+ / 0-) Just a matter of time till the Internet tells us! -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:30:18 PM PDT * [new] Excellent, pinche tejano (3+ / 0-) Thank you. Wish we could make it stick. See my art at Peace Angel and Al Gore08 by Tigana on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:27:14 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] One of the best articles Ive read (1+ / 0-) in weeks. You got front-paged at digg (1200 diggs, 150 comments, and counting), so I must not be alone in that sentiment. The Common Good, Equal Opportunity, The Right to Privacy, Accountable Government, Respect Abroad. by flernk on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:41:58 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] YEah, I just noticed that. (0+ / 0-) It also just got pulled, so lost a bet. I bet my friend drinks I could beat the mushroom. Ah the sport of the young intelligentsia, Meta Racing , shouldnt even bet on your own horse. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:12:43 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] have been to that website? (1+ / 0-) thememoryhole.org/ Dont fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985) by hypersphere01 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:44:01 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I own the book. (1+ / 0-) -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:17:51 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] really? (1+ / 0-) have you looked at the CIA documents from Iran 1950s? i found those to be very enlightening. havent got the book yet. Dont fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985) by hypersphere01 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:26:32 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] The 1950 docs from Greece are even more so. (0+ / 0-) I already knew about the Iran 1950s fiasco, the Greece bullshit threw me for a loop tho. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:56:54 AM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] thanks for the tip (0+ / 0-) i have a lot of reading to do. Dont fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985) by hypersphere01 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:39:24 AM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Where to start... (10+ / 0-) We can have every Congressional invertebrate and White House scumbag who ever took money from AIPAC 86ed. That makes me smile... Waster of electrons, unlawful enemy combatant. by meldroc on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:36:09 PM PDT * [new] Ohhh, I didnt even think about that. (5+ / 0-) And just think of the influence Saudia Arabia would lose as well. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:40:54 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Who knew... (10+ / 0-) that the United States had a Constitution? Someone should tell Bush... The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw by kmiddle on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:40:39 PM PDT * [new] he knows.. and thinks its just a (0+ / 0-) god damned piece of paper. he regularly wipes his ass with it and pisses on it in front of the world. Dont fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985) by hypersphere01 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:44:54 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Debunked (4+ / 0-) HERE Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists. by dhonig on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:49:21 PM PDT * [new] Yeah, kind of included that above already. (3+ / 0-) The interest part is how many manuals and state constitutions included it. Are you saying that all these old books were sent back in time by this fringe group? You my friend have a better call to make to Art Bell than I do. Thats what makes it interesting, all the old books and manuals, which exist, that include it. Sure a lawyer says a lawyer is Constitutional, but both camps are dealing in material lost through the ages. All we have left is written records, which I included above, and if you look up above, I included his rebuttal, in fact, I have the exact same link you do! Odd that. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:55:27 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] The notion that this precludes lawyers (3+ / 0-) from serving in the government seems to be a brand-new theory, no? Most of the diary is spent on the fascinating tale of the Lost Amendment. But what effect the amendment would have gets short shrift. I dont buy that interpretation. It seems a huge stretch from common usage. by Elwood Dowd on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:01:16 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I agree, I just found its inclusion fascinating (1+ / 0-) in all the old material. Really goes to show how states use to do their own thing back in the day. Could you imagine say, Nebraska, printing an Amendment to the Constitution that California didnt? Shows how mode of communication and federalism has changed the make up of the country. And oh, I also say how absurd it would be since Esquire in the lawyer title is laughable at best, since most American lawyers are in the ABA. Just seems this story really pisses someone off for reason I have no idea. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:07:04 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] The time of the amendment (2+ / 0-) is before the first Law School in the US, let alone the ABA. Im pretty sure a review of the amendments progress through Congress and the states would show many practicing lawyers supporting it. by Elwood Dowd on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:11:25 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Was there a proto-ABA back then? (0+ / 0-) I am not a great student of early American lawyers. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:21:42 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I very much doubt it. (1+ / 0-) People apprenticed and read for the law. There would have been local groups of lawyers and judges who determined who was admitted to practice law, perhaps with no college education at all. But I dont believe there would have been any true national organization. by Elwood Dowd on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:30:59 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Interesting, glad we got the ABA (0+ / 0-) I could see Lawyers and Judges emerging almost like a caste system if we continued to use that system. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:38:52 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] As noted in the detailed debunking (1+ / 0-) early on there was not a clean method of determining whether an Amendment had been ratified. Printing errors resulted. As the linked article notes, these sorts of errors actually led to a new federal law to deal with the problem. But what really concerns me is your conclusory paragraph, in which you posit it is a lawyer issue. That part is the real lie, for esquire has always been a honorary title, and not a title of nobility. You appear to have bought into an extreme meme hook, line, and sinker. This diary perpetuates a hoax based upon a lie, all teetering on a foundation of misunderstanding and error. Fortunately, that error has been clearly known, and proven, for almost two hundred years. Unfortunately, liars and fools perpetuate it. Even more unfortunately, it is now finding its way onto progressive and Democratic sites. Delete it. Please. Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists. by dhonig on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:02:08 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I agree with all except delete (4+ / 0-) Im learning some interesting history, and so far see no signs of further decreased reasoning ability. by Elwood Dowd on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:06:42 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] What part of this do you not understand: (4+ / 0-) This would also be pretty defunct today, as most of our lawyers belong to the ABA, or American Bar Association, so only fools who belong to the IBA would fall under this domain. So basically, unless you accept a foreign title, say Knight, you will not be affected and forced to forfeit your citizenship. So I am fool for saying these guys who say these foolish things are fools? You obviously just saw the context and thought I was support this absurdity in classic knee-jerk reaction, go piss on someone elses parade now please. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:10:16 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Bogus (1+ / 0-) You say: Did you know the 13th Amendment supplanted an original 13th Amendment already on the books? I am being completely serious for once, follow me below the fold: You link to the debunking site, but dont seem to have absorbed it; in fact, you ridicule it. My conclusion is that your diary is pimping for the historically absurd argument that there is a mystery XIIIth Amendment, even if you dont go so far as to think that lawyers are subject to it. Even with that slight limitation, this is a ridiculous diary pushing false history. This machine kills fascists--words on Woody Guthries guitar by Old Left Good Left on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:25:45 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Well if the old guard thinks its ridiculous (0+ / 0-) it must have some merit. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:58:53 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Nobility OR HONOR (0+ / 0-) Your distinction re: title of nobility is not relevant. by Argyrios on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:11:14 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Please delete this crap (1+ / 0-) it is ultra-right wing claptrap, almost always quoted in anti-tax screeds. This borders on a troll diary. Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists. by dhonig on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:53:10 PM PDT * [new] You need to sit down and shut up. (12+ / 0-) It is a historical curousity that exists in printed form. Some people here like to know about quirks in our little system and history. If it makes you cry, go to another diary. And look above, I say it was refuted by the very obscure link you provided in your other comment. You need to go trolling against an easier target my friend. Are you saying all the picture evidence is fake? Please send me a link to where all the historical documents listed above are in fact forgories and I will delete. Other wise, quit trying to stifle intellectual debate, which I find to be a bit more ultra-right wing claptrap than any thing above. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:58:26 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Except that (1+ / 0-) you dont present it as an historical curiosity, but as a fact, and the victim of a conspiracy. I am not trying to stifle intellectual debate. I am asking that you delete utter bullshit. Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists. by dhonig on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:05:26 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] You are the first one to say conspiracy my friend (4+ / 0-) I offered it up as a historical curiosity with printed material from several states that printed this amendment with a link to very rebuttal you are using to brow beat me with! If I was trying for the conspiracy angle, why would I offer a link to a site that refutes that it is a functioning amendment? You, my friend, are a piece of work. I still like your cartoons though. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:15:42 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Maybe Im responding too strongly (1+ / 0-) but I have actually had to spend time and quite unfortunately clients money (though in one case the person promulgating this crap was ordered to pay the fees and costs) defending against exactly this absurdity. Additionaly, your presentation APPEARS to favor this bizarre interpretation, rather than merely presenting it as an interesting PUBLISHING event, more like an upside down airplane on a stamp than anything else. If this were presented as (a) historical curiosity, (b) seized upon by ultra-right wing Constitutionalists (c) to justify their bizarre positions, I would be applauding it. Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists. by dhonig on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:25:21 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] That was the intent. (2+ / 0-) If I really wanted to piss you off, Id post that the Federal Income tax amendment was never properly ratified. heh, I know of the asshats you speak of, sorry you didnt get the intent. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:29:03 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] You are (2+ / 0-) Responding too strongly. On the other hand I am now curious what kind of case someone could currently make to their advantage using this? We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Plato by Catte Nappe on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:57:03 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I am as well, holding a personal debate (2+ / 0-) in my head trying to figure out how this could possibly benefit any one in the modern era. Only person I can see in violation seeking public office holding a noble title is Rudy Giuliani. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:58:34 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Lawyers (3+ / 0-) It seemed to be the lawyer thing that set off the reaction of alarm. Maybe every law passed in which the majority vote included ineligible lawyers is retroactively no longer a law? We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Plato by Catte Nappe on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:13:14 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Yeah, but even that seems absurd, because (3+ / 0-) even if we ratified it now, everything else would be grandfathered in. Otherwise, as of 1865, half the union would have been jailed for slavery. Or drinking in the 1920s. The given amensity in the 1930s. I think Dhonig got tangled up with some of those nutcases who say the federal income tax amendment was never ratified, and the 13th amendment was but squashed. I mean, that is abusrd, and being from Texas, I know some very absurd men with very deep pockets. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:26:33 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] forgive my ignorance (1+ / 0-) but I thought Americans got around this by having honorary titles conferred. Wouldnt this exclude Rudy from this amendment anyway? by apostrophobia on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:19:33 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] There is no getting around the Constitution. (1+ / 0-) Only justifications by men who want titles. They need to amend the Constitution, not doublespeak their way around it. 2 cents. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:24:04 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] thanks for the 2 cents (1+ / 0-) btw, very interesting and enjoyable diary too! by apostrophobia on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:43:01 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Funny thing is, (1+ / 0-) even by English law/tradition, foreigners who are knighted are not given the honorary title of Sir. They are simply recognized as having been knighted. Mojito ergo sum. by Uniter on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:51:37 AM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] The insanity and inanity (0+ / 0-) seems to ALWAYS come typewritten (these people never use computers, probably part of the paranoia), in dense, multi-paged, single spaced diatribes. They include this crap, self-appointed magistrate courts, indictments of the sitting judge, motions to recuse him because he is illegally sitting, and absolutely bizarre pseudo-religious objections to the jurisdiction of the court. Dont ask me how it makes sense, for it never does. But the parties are always pro bono, and courts bend over backward to protect them. As a result, I always end up having to respond to this crap in detail. Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists. by dhonig on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:49:36 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Please stop making these crappy comments... (7+ / 0-) The diary as significant historical merit. Your comments, on the contrary, have none. Go unbunch your panties and find another diary to screw with. Wont you help me Mr. Jesus ~ Wont you tell me if you can ~ When you see this world we live in ~ Do you still believe in Man? by JuniperLea on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:10:11 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Agreed (3+ / 0-) Comment is trollish, abrasive and needlessly combative. by Argyrios on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:14:22 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Delete? No. (10+ / 0-) I think that this is fascinating! Thanks to pinche tejano for bringing this interesting piece of American history to our attention. My dream ticket in 2008? John Edwards-Kathleen Sebelius by KansasLiberal on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:17:57 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] And now you got a copy of the Kansas General (2+ / 0-) Statues from 1868! Its amazing whats showing up on the internet these days. Obviously, you people in Kansas are part of this grand conspiracy! Heh. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:20:18 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Now that you have discovered our Kansas chapter (3+ / 0-) we must move to silence you! Be afraid; be very afraid! OTOH, we will probably just move on to another conspiracy since vengeance is so demanding of energy, time and money--and its really more fun just to plot. :) Thanks for the interesting diary! by gfv6800 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:17:22 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Esquire (1+ / 0-) Esquire is neither a title of nobility nor honor. It is a title of office. by Firefly on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:09:06 PM PDT * [new] Yeah, noted that. (0+ / 0-) Thats why I say only Knight or order title. I also offered the proper rebuttal with link. Maybe I use put that up there in a blink tag. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:11:57 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Not a title of honor? (0+ / 0-) Thats up for interpretation. by Argyrios on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:13:20 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Not really (0+ / 0-) The term title of honor as used in that proposed amendment has a very specific legal meaning, which is different from the common usage. by Firefly on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:55:12 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Not even that (0+ / 0-) Its not even a title of office. Nobody officially grants the Esquire that lawyers use. Its a PR device that lawyers grant themselves. As such, even if the amendment had passed (which it didnt), it wouldnt apply. by bghill on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:01:22 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Esquire is a bullshit affectation. (0+ / 0-) Nobody uses it anymore. Where were you in 2002? barackobama/pdf/warspeech.pdf by Inland on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:41:54 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Damn dude (2+ / 0-) And leave it up to Abu G, of all people, to trigger such an examination. So, did Abu Gs Justice Department violate this 13th Amendment, or the 13th Amendment we all know? This is certainly an interesting question, though. Is there another amendment to the Constitution that was mysteriously deleted? Given that a Giuliani is attempting to win the Presidency, in clear violation of what may be an Amendment to the Constitution (though the title of Knight is strictly honorary in this day and age (I think), and carries with it no authority (I think), it may be simple semantics)...anyway...I lost my train of thought. Anyway, this probably should be further explored, perhaps even brought before the SCOTUS for a ruling. Does the 13th Amendment count or not? Furthermore, since the Amendment period must not have passed by the time Virginia approved the Amendment, then what about Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Louisiana? And since it appears to have been the accepted law of the land for roughly 40 years, before it magically disappeared, does that mean it should be the law now? Or, during the chaos of the Civil War, was the Amendment somehow stuck down due to the expansion of the Union during the period of 1810-1818? In other words, is there a long lost court case in which the amendment was struck down? What would be the legality of striking it down during the Civil War, as numerous states that approved it were in full on rebellion? It all merits further study, even before you can consider bringing such a question before the Supremes? All we are saying, is give it an UPPERDOWNVOTE!!!! by Jerry 101 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:13:52 PM PDT * [new] Oh, and (0+ / 0-) HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All we are saying, is give it an UPPERDOWNVOTE!!!! by Jerry 101 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:14:45 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I dont know, thats why I presented it. (1+ / 0-) I stumbled across that War Manual with the 13th Amendment included. Then found more. It was a pretty interesting story so I found all the other states that also included it and found as much info, from both sides, and put it here. Seems odd though that certain states were printing it, and others were not. Thats what makes it a historical curiousity, but if you took this to court, I am sure you would be laughed out of the building. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:18:12 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] But even the debunker says that with twenty (1+ / 0-) some more state approvals it could be adopted. Not exactly worthwhile given current events but an interesting project for some activist high schoolers? by gfv6800 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:20:41 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Okay, heres why its BS (0+ / 0-) Now the reason lawyer would have been prohibited is because the International Bar Association was charted by the King of England and headquartered in London. So any American lawyer who uses the term Esquire would be in violation of the Constitution, Article 1, Sect. 9. The IBA was founded in 1947. Obviously, it had NOTHING to do with an Amendment promulgated in 1810. Additionally, by 1927 any attorney using Esquire after their name would have been licensed in an American State, not through the King of England. And this is not one of the quotes, but part of the explanation put forward by the diarist. The diarist seems to be working pretty hard to support this fantasy, writing: But what seems even odder is all the publications that include this 13th Amendment, all the way up to 1868. To bad everyone involved has been dead and buried for over 150 years now, so we will never know the truth. But if it existed, as much evidence points that it did, then it is still part of the law of the land and valid today. Either way, makes for a hell of a story. Good for us, then, that people wrote about this over 150 years ago, isnt it?: On August 1, 1849, C. Robinson and J. M. Patton, who were preparing a new edition of the code of Virginia for publication, wrote to William B. Preston, Secretary of the Navy (for reasons that are not immediately clear, although Preston was from Virginia), and noted that although the Titles of Nobility Amendment was included in the Revised Code of 1819, [w]e are satisfied that this amendment was never adopted, though it is difficult to account for the fact that it should have been put into the Code of 1819 as an amendment which had been adopted. Preston relayed their letter to the State Department. John M. Clayton, Secretary of State, responded that no copy of the amendment, claiming to be part of the Constitution, had been deposited with the Department; the amendment did not appear in a copy of the Constitution printed under the direction of the Department of State in 1820. This diary perpetuates a sham. It is not presented as historical curiosity, but as fact, and is simply false. It is also a gross far-right fantasy, a pillar of the Constitutionalist movement, and should be deleted. Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists. by dhonig on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:20:11 PM PDT * [new] Go Cheney yourself. (4+ / 0-) YOu missed the point of this diary completely, that historical documents contain an Amendment that was lost through history. I really dont care what you think, I just find it cool that certain states included it in their printed statues and others didnt. Please, go, now. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:26:32 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I read it as a curiosity (0+ / 0-) and, given Giulianis pursuit of the Presidency, one that should be questioned. If it is, in fact, illegal for an elected official to hold foreign title, then Giuliani could not be elected. From what Ive seen in the few minutes that have passed since my last comment, Im quite sure this amendment is not missing and that it has not been passed. But it is a strange situation, nevertheless. A few other things I found on Wikipedia... This amendment amongst other items of interest.... Supreme Court case regarding old unratified amendments Unratified Amendments The first unratified amendment seems like a good idea. It would require the massive expansion of the House of Representatives. Whoa, the Corwin Amendment, preserving slavery, is still officially pending. All we are saying, is give it an UPPERDOWNVOTE!!!! by Jerry 101 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:38:27 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I see it as an interesting item of history. You (0+ / 0-) seem to be a little too heavily invested in the issue. Slack off, man. by gfv6800 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:23:00 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I think I missed the commotion (0+ / 0-) Regardless of curiosity or conspiracy or whatever you want to call it. What makes it a far-right fantasy? (-8.75,-6.56) by Corvidae on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:44:11 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] The Corwin Amendment, prohibiting any amendments (1+ / 0-) to the Constitution allowing the federal government to abolish or interfere with slavery allowed by states, and passed by Congress in 1861, would have become the 13th Amendment if it had been ratified by the necessary number of states, instead of by the mere two that did ratify it (Ohio and Maryland.) It is still open for ratification by the states, so that it could, theoretically, still become part of the Constitution, long after Congress passed it, the way the 27th Amendment was eventually ratified. If it were to be ratified (with all sorts of troublesome legal consequences,) it would not, of course, be the 13th Amendment. Katrina was Americas Chernobyl. by lysias on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:21:31 PM PDT * [new] Clarify something for me. (0+ / 0-) When reading about this, and the adding of new states, a question came up. When new states were added to the Union, the ratio of states needed to ratify it also increase? I looked and looked and looked, and couldnt find the answer. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:24:22 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Constitution says 3/4 of states have to ratify (0+ / 0-) an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution. How many states that in fact is depends on the total number of states. Katrina was Americas Chernobyl. by lysias on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:26:08 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] So when more states are added, more states (0+ / 0-) have to ratify it? Is that correct? -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:32:16 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Yes. n/t (1+ / 0-) Katrina was Americas Chernobyl. by lysias on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:33:38 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Thanks! (0+ / 0-) Mystery solved. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:39:40 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] unless its already been ratified (0+ / 0-) I would think that the ratification of existing, ratified amendments is considered automatic upon entering the union. All we are saying, is give it an UPPERDOWNVOTE!!!! by Jerry 101 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:39:36 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Yeah, I was talking about the magical time (0+ / 0-) when we were still adding states. As the rebuttal link I gave, which Dhonig seems to glossed right over, it notes that 3 states were added while Virginia twiddled its thumbs, and how there was a war too. So one of the incoming states would have had to ratify it as well. Which makes its inclusion all the way up to 1868 even wilder! -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:41:24 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Meh. Less than meets the eye, here. (0+ / 0-) Color me not terribly impressed. But as the Wickipedia article points out, if this amendment were indeed passed, well, it might or might not strip lawyers of their citizenship... thats a real stretch... but it would definitely prohibit Americans from accepting the Nobel prize without Congressional consent. That prize is certainly an emolument and arguably an honor, and is presented by a king. Mm. That list of amendments that have been accidentally violated looks like the product of a random number generator. 2nd: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 4th: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. 13th (today): Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 17th: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. OK, so what have they, um, accidentally been up to? Apparently, along with unreasonable searches and seizures (which I believe), theyve been trampling on the NRA, assuming powers that belong to the States (or, snicker, the people!), using slave labor (how do you do that by accident?), and, ah... preventing the direct election of Senators??? Excuse me, how do you do that even on purpose, let alone accidentally? Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH by Canadian Reader on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:48:12 PM PDT * [new] Hmm, slave labour and the Baghdad Embassy. (0+ / 0-) Wonder if knucklehead approved that. As I said above, this is a historical curiousity, and I giggle that people think I was seriously saying we need to start including this in our current Constitution. But it does show how different states back in the day use to print very varied versions of the Constitution in their statues. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:55:57 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Dont delete, this is as good as the DaVince code (2+ / 0-) And it all checks out. See here: loc.gov/... Great diary. Its always good to check out the facts. Progressive Dems should be reborn as Aggressive Dems and 1) get out of Iraq asap 2) impeach Cheney then Bush 3) elect Gore. by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:49:49 PM PDT * [new] Not National Treasure? (1+ / 0-) I am sure now that the wealth of the original American aristocracy can be found if we can just decant why it was printed in different states! Trust no one.... -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:56:53 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I had to laugh when I read that the reason for (1+ / 0-) the thirteenth amendment was because of the presence of Jerome Bonaparte, nephew, I think, of Napoleon. He wasnt loved by the powers of the day. Progressive Dems should be reborn as Aggressive Dems and 1) get out of Iraq asap 2) impeach Cheney then Bush 3) elect Gore. by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:00:50 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] And then peace broke out, ending their empire! (2+ / 0-) The whole thing made me giggle, and a little wild eye different states were printing different versions of the Constitution. But what made me laugh was Dhonig thinking I brough this to Dkos as an issue! hehe, still makes me laugh. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:03:06 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Ive always wondered about that (1+ / 0-) esquire title. by Bernie68 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:02:07 PM PDT * [new] Gracious! (0+ / 0-) Think of all the lobbyists who have been receiving emoluments from foreign powers. How manys states did you say have to get on board to get this back on the books? We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Plato by Catte Nappe on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:03:54 PM PDT * [new] 26, 12 have already ratified it. (0+ / 0-) That would be funny as shit, if there was a revival of this, it would make certain people here cry. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:07:42 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Fascinating, pinche. (1+ / 0-) Thank you for writing this diary, which is one of the most interesting things Ive seen on this site--or the entire danged ol intertubes, for that matter. Thank you. Highly recommended. Nanotechnology can take atmospheric CO2 and make diamonds and fresh air. New! Listen to crap at LouLost by Crashing Vor on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:52:37 PM PDT * [new] Currently trying to get all the Whig Almanac (1+ / 0-) I had no idea these old books were starting to appear on the tubes. Should make history a lot more entertaining! And I am to please, and piss off at least one person. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:20:32 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I think I am the former (0+ / 0-) and I do sincerely hope you find the latter. Nanotechnology can take atmospheric CO2 and make diamonds and fresh air. New! Listen to crap at LouLost by Crashing Vor on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:02:27 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] I wouldnt accept a knighthood, regardless. (1+ / 0-) Its ridiculous for Americans to accept knighthoods and other bricabrac of nobility from foreign heads of state. Its not our tradition so its all the silliness with none of the historical background that justifies it. Not that theres much danger of being offered one, but still. Where were you in 2002? barackobama/pdf/warspeech.pdf by Inland on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:47:04 PM PDT * [new] So... (0+ / 0-) since the custom of giving proposed amendments limited terms for adoption doesnt come until much later (cf Amendment XXVII, which was originally part of the amendments that became the Bill of Rights), how many states would have to adopt it to make it law now? I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor. King George III by ogre on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:20:15 PM PDT * [new] 26 for a total of 38 (0+ / 0-) That would be funny as shit. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:57:54 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Please (0+ / 0-) Please dont fall for this. This has been debunked so many times its laughable. This theory is mainly put forward by tax cheats (protesters) because they think its a way they can avoid paying federal taxes. Cmon folks, lets not give conspiracy theories like this the time of day. by Flaw on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:50:42 AM PDT * [new] No shit, really? Come on, you missed the intent (0+ / 0-) Its the fact is was repeatedly printed in old books that makes for a good story, you think I am seriously saying this is a way to avoid income tax? Please point out in the diary where I say that. You people are afraid of looking at history because of those kooks, so who really wins? -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:58:26 AM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Did I say you? (1+ / 0-) No, I didnt say you. by Flaw on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:25:44 AM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Wikipedia has an excellent writeup. (1+ / 0-) en.wikipedia.org/... by zeique on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:05:05 PM PDT * [new] Curious... (1+ / 0-) Monroe and Adams seem not to have chosen to written to the states of Louisiana, Indiana, or Mississippi, nor Illinois, to ask their legislatures rejection or ratification. Which suggests one of three things; the more likely being that they didnt think that the states that had been admitted to the Union since the amendment was presented needed to be polled. The second is that they maliciously conspired to keep ratification from occurring--I dont think theres enough tin foil for that one. The third is that they just forgot that there were four new states... which seems damned implausible. I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor. King George III by ogre on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:27:11 PM PDT * [new] Oh btw, the best conspiracy I heard on this (0+ / 0-) in a forum, lost the link, and I had surfed like 20 sites to get to it, was that the British attacked us in 1812 so they wouldnt pass this amendment! Thats the best story Ive heard in awhile. -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & Is score! by pinche tejano on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:14:30 PM PDT [ Parent ] * [new] Whether or not this Amendment was ratified. . . (1+ / 0-) it could still be resurrected today and would only need 3/4 of the states which did not exist to ratify or reject it after Virginia voted on it. This is how the Twenty-Seventh Amendment became law, IIRC. If of course it was ratified it should not have been removed from the Constitution except by another Amendment repealing it. Wouldnt we all be the poorer if the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments were to simply drop out of the Constitution, with subsequent amendments being renumbered? Could the ABA have been created to persuade lawyers not to violate Amendment XIII by joining the IBA? Was Lincoln a member of the IBA? Is that why the Amendment was taken out? This is why I voted this Amendment is an interesting sidenote. by amyzex on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 01:26:08 PM PDT Permalink Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos. Diary Recommended By Recommended by pinche tejano
Posted on: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:26:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015