Skip to main content

View Diary: The "Missing" 13th Amendment, an odd Constitution story (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, here's why it's 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, isn't 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

    •  Go Cheney yourself. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      flernk, Tigana, hypersphere01, moose67

      YOu missed the point of this diary completely, that historical documents contain an Amendment that was lost through history.

      I really don't care what you think, I just find it cool that certain states included it in their printed statues and others didn't.

      Please, go, now.

      -4.63 -5.28 - Ghandi & I's score!

      by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:26:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I read it as a curiosity (0+ / 0-)

      and, given Giuliani's 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 I've seen in the few minutes that have passed since my last comment, I'm 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 ]

    •  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.

    •  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?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site