Skip to main content

So this is either one of the worst things ever to happen to the Constitution, or one of the most elaborate web hoaxes ever. This all started in seeing what Gonzo was lying about today. One of my favorite political sites, Wonkette, said this:

April 24, 2005 Gonzales is sent an FBI report of an IOB violation involving an intelligence investigation in which agents accidentally violated the 2nd, 4th, 10th, 13th, and 17th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Considering there is always a nugget of truth in their snark, when I saw the 13th amendment, my heart sank. My first though was the Northern Mariana Islands, you remember right, like 114 scandals ago? Fearing the worse*, like the USA supporting slavery at the justification of the Attorney General, I stumbled onto something even crazier.

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:

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:
http://www.w3f.com/...

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 library's 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 Amendment's 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
jeffrey.brown@state.me.us

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, 1811http://www.dailykos.com/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 legislature's 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 Amendment's 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!)
http://www.proliberty.com/...

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 Citizen's 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:

http://www.thirdamendment.com/...

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. Mississippi's admission on December 10, 1817, did not change the threshold, but Illinois's 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, it's 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 I'd share.

Originally posted to pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:35 PM PDT.

Poll

The story of the "missing" 13th Amendment is:

42%1909 votes
5%232 votes
8%374 votes
44%2020 votes

| 4535 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  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 & I's score!

    by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:30:18 PM PDT

  •  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

  •  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

    •  he knows.. and thinks it's 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.

      Don't 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 ]

  •  Debunked (4+ / 0-)

    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

    •  Yeah, kind of included that above already. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, flernk, KansasLiberal

      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. That's 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 & I's score!

      by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:55:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  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 don't buy that interpretation. It seems a huge stretch from common usage.

        •  I agree, I just found it's inclusion fascinating (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KansasLiberal

          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 didn't?

          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 & I's score!

          by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:07:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  As noted in the detailed debunking (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chilltown

        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 ]

        •  I agree with all except "delete" (4+ / 0-)

          I'm learning some interesting history, and so far see no signs of further decreased reasoning ability.

        •  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 else's parade now please.

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

          by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:10:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bogus (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dhonig

            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 don't 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 don't 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 Guthrie's guitar

            by Old Left Good Left on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:25:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  "Nobility OR HONOR" (0+ / 0-)

          Your distinction re: title of nobility is not relevant.

  •  Please delete this crap (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quinton

    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

  •  Esquire (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pinche tejano

    "Esquire" is neither a title of nobility nor honor.  It is a title of office.

  •  Damn dude (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pinche tejano, moose67

    And leave it up to Abu G, of all people, to trigger such an examination.

    So, did Abu G's 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

    •  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 ]

    •  I don't know, that's why I presented it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bdk

      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.

      That's 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 & I's score!

      by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:18:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  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?

  •  The Corwin Amendment, prohibiting any amendments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pinche tejano

    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 America's Chernobyl.

    by lysias on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:21:31 PM PDT

  •  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... that's 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), they've 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

    •  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 & I's score!

      by pinche tejano on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:55:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't delete, this is as good as the DaVince code (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pinche tejano, moose67

    And it all checks out. See here:

    http://www.loc.gov/...

    Great diary. It's 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

  •  I've always wondered about that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pinche tejano

    'esquire' title.

  •  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

  •  Fascinating, pinche. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pinche tejano

    Thank you for writing this diary, which is one of the most interesting things I've 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.com

    by Crashing Vor on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:52:37 PM PDT

  •  I wouldn't accept a knighthood, regardless. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pinche tejano

    It's ridiculous for Americans to accept knighthoods and other bricabrac of nobility from foreign heads of state.  It's not our tradition so it's all the silliness with none of the historical background that justifies it.

    Not that there's much danger of being offered one, but still.

    Where were you in 2002? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

    by Inland on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:47:04 PM PDT

  •  So... (0+ / 0-)

    since the custom of giving proposed amendments limited terms for adoption doesn't 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

  •  Please (0+ / 0-)

    Please don't fall for this.  This has been debunked so many times it's laughable.  This "theory" is mainly put forward by tax cheats ("protesters") because they think it's a way they can avoid paying federal taxes.

    C'mon folks, let's not give conspiracy theories like this the time of day.

  •  Wikipedia has an excellent writeup. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pinche tejano
  •  Curious... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pinche tejano

    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 didn't 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 don't think there's 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

    •  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 wouldn't pass this amendment!

      That's the best story I've heard in awhile.

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

      by pinche tejano on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:14:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whether or not this Amendment was ratified. . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pinche tejano

    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.  Wouldn't 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."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site