missing 13th amendment????

[vietnow]

here is an odd story that just might have relavence to this movement.

http://awakeningrose.blogspot.com/


anyone heard of this before?

[John of Des Moines]

Yeah, I've researched the missing 13th. It was ratified in 1812 and published by various states, Congress and the War Department. I've got a copy of the Connectcutt state law from 1821 and it's in there, what makes this interesting is Conn rejected the amendment but still published it! Go to http://www.amendment-13.org/ for more info on the ratification process. But, their view the 13th amendment makes all lawyers non-citizen is misguided, it only makes some of them who use the title "esquire" given to them via the ABA and the Queen of England.

[Dustancostine]

What the Hell!!!!

My Head is spinning. Any explanation as to where it went?

[John of Des Moines]

It was removed so that this country could/can be bought and sold with the aid of the legal class. Remember, the Dubii ports deal? Everyone involved lost their citizenship - it least in my world.

[Mr. White]

I'll call misinterpretation. The term esquire, while originating in the fuedal system is taken by lawyers to indicate their practice. Some lawyers take it, some don't. Just like a Doctor puts Dr. in front of his name. What's fun is, the title doctor really only belongs to professors, but that's a whole other subject.

[pyrazole2]

Intresting! Thanks for the post.

[kylejack]

Intriguing. I'm going to keep looking into this, and I'm hoping it doesn't dead-end into some conspiracy theory nonsense.

[james1906]

Wow! This law goes pretty far. If the PM of Ireland bought me a pint of Guinniess, I'd lose my citizenship!

[kylejack]

And now for the relevance to the campaign: Rudy Giuliani is a Knight Commander of the British Empire, a title granted to him by the Queen.

[maxmerkel]

GO to your local antique stores and try to find a book from 1812-1860/1870 with a reprint of the constitution ! WOW, this IS stunning ! :eek:

i'll go to my local german antique's store right now and try to find a book on america/american history from this time ....

[Mr. White]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment

claims it was never ratified.

[John of Des Moines]

GO to your local antique stores and try to find a book from 1812-1860/1870 with a reprint of the constitution ! WOW, this IS stunning ! :eek:

i'll go to my local german antique's store right now and try to find a book on america/american history from this time ....

Go to ebay or http://www.abebooks.com/ or http://www.bookfinder.com/ or http://www.biblio.com/.

[SWATH]

Michael Badnarik talked about this in his constitution class on google video.

[kylejack]

From the wiki article:

Long-standing misimpression
The misconception prevailed for decades that the TONA had in fact become part of the federal Constitution—indeed many printings of the Constitution during the 19th century erroneously include it as being the 13th Amendment. Perhaps this misunderstanding could be traced to the mistaken belief that both chambers of South Carolina's legislature had acted favorably upon the TONA when, apparently, only one body had done so. Or possibly, it can be attributed to the misapprehension that Virginia lawmakers had adopted the TONA, despite the long-standing belief that there was a lack of documentation that either chamber of Virginia's legislature ever even so much as considered the TONA.

That is not where the misunderstandings end. There is a further mistaken belief that the TONA was, at all stages, just one state's adoption shy of being incorporated into the federal Constitution.

When the TONA was offered by Congress to the state legislatures on May 1, 1810, the approval of 13 of them would indeed have been required. However, with the addition of Louisiana into the Union on April 30, 1812, that threshold increased to 14 state approvals. Louisiana's statehood commenced after the Massachusetts ratification of the TONA, but prior to the New Hampshire ratification of it. Then, when Indiana was admitted on December 11, 1816, the bar was raised up to 15 approvals need to ratify the TONA. And although the admission of Mississippi on December 10, 1817, did not increase the numerical requirement, the entry of Illinois on December 3, 1818, did elevate that minimum to 16 state adoptions necessary for the TONA to be incorporated into the Constitution of the United States of America.

So 16 states were required by the time Virginia allegedly ratified.

[John of Des Moines]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment

claims it was never ratified.

So you believe anything thing you read on Wiki? Say in 1822 I lived in Conn and used the 13th amendment in the state of Conn authorized statutory book in court would a judge say "Hey that amendment wasn't ratified? Or would a judge accept as proof the the state law containing (showing) the amendment is part of the law of the land?

What is interesting is about 15 years ago West Publishing said is was going to digitize all the Federal and State court decision prior to 1872 (West started in 1872; and West had digitized all the court decisions they had published from 1872 to the then present time - 1992). So my question is: What's taking them so long, perhaps they don't want to share all the great little golden nuggets found in them old law books. Such as the United State government is actually a corporation - per John Marshall sitting as a circuit justice.

[John of Des Moines]

From the wiki article:


So 16 states were required by the time Virginia allegedly ratified.


Sorry, states admitted after Congress proposes an amendment can't be part of the ratification process. I know this is going to start an argument - but I got a Fred T event here in DM to go to later. I'll detail my research and arguments later today. Thanks for the discussion.

[kylejack]

Sorry, states admitted after Congress proposes an amendment can't be part of the ratification process. I know this is going to start an argument - but I got a Fred T event here in DM to go to later. I'll detail my research and arguments later today. Thanks for the discussion.

The 13th amendment site says:


The Constitution limits consideration of constitutional amendments to states already in the union and Congress provided no qualification in this or any other resolution proposing a constitutional amendment. Thus, even if a territory reached statehood before culmination of the ratification process, there was no standing for that state to participate in the process. If Congress meant for that legislative option to be available, it would have had to so stipulate.

If this can be sourced, great. But it needs to be sourced. I contacted the site author.

[John of Des Moines]

The 13th amendment site says:



If this can be sourced, great. But it needs to be sourced. I contacted the site author.

Okay, real quick. In 1818 Congress (actually the House of Reps.) wanted to know if the necessary number of states had ratified the 13th. They directed the President (who passed it off the Sec of State) to inquire of the states whose action on the amendment was unknown (back then they didn't have the internet and the Library of Congress was burned down so the records were wanting). Congress directed that South Carolina, Connecticut and Virginia be contacted regarding any action they had taken on the amendment. (Congress knew of all the other states' action on the amendment.) Connecticut and S. Carolina wrote back saying they rejected the amendment and Virginia was silent until 1819 - more on Virginia's action later when I detail this argument further in a later post. But, what about the three states admitted after the amendment was proposed but before the inquiry (Louisiana, Miss, and Indy). Why didn't the representatives from each of those states object to not being included in the inquiry? That's one rep from each of those states, (total of 3), plus each of those states' 2 senators could have objected to their states not being included (6 more), plus the Governors of each of those new states (3) plus all the members of each of the new states legislature (say 125 - sorry no time to research the exact number), plus the representatives, senators and all the rest of those states that rejected the amendment - I'm sure they would have spoken up too. So, from the contemporaneously produced evidence it's clear that the people back then did not believe states admitted to the Union after the proposal by Congress and the final ratification by the necessary number of states (13 in this case). More on this topic later.

[kylejack]

Article V of the Constitution does not specify whether the states that are to ratify an amendment are those in existence when an amendment is submitted to the states, or also includes those that join the Union after the amendment has been submitted to the states but prior to ratification. History, however, provides an answer. When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states on September 25, 1789, only 11 states were operating under the Constitution; each amendment then required 9 ratifications to become part of the Constitution. But North Carolina ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island on May 29, 1790, raising the number of ratifications required to 10.(123) Vermont then joined the Union on March 4, 1791,(124) raising the number of ratifications required to 11.(125) The official notice of the ratification of the Bill of Rights was not issued by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson until March 1, 1792, after notices of ratification had been received from 11 states.(126)

On March 2, 1797, before the Eleventh Amendment was known to have become part of the Constitution,(127) Congress passed a resolution requesting the President to obtain information from states about what action they had taken on the amendment, including Tennessee, which had not been part of the Union when the amendment was proposed.(128) On October 16, 1797, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering wrote to Tennessee Governor John Sevier, enclosing a copy of the Eleventh Amendment.(129) Pickering stated that he thought it "expedient to transmit . . . a copy of the resolution, to be laid before the legislature of Tennessee, for their adoption or rejection."(130) The principle that new states are to be included in the ratification process of a constitutional amendment has continued into the twentieth century. When New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union in 1912, the number of states required to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment increased to 36, which they were among.(131)

If to become part of the Constitution an amendment required only the number of ratifications that were required when it was first submitted to the states, the constitutional history of the United States would be very different.(132) The Congressional Apportionment Amendment, the original First Amendment, received ten ratifications; it would be part of the Constitution.(133) Similarly, the Twenty-seventh Amendment would not have become part of the Constitution in 1992 when it received its thirty- eighth ratification, but rather in 1983 when it received its ninth ratification.(134) Further, if only states that were eligible to vote on an amendment when it was submitted to the states are ever eligible to vote on that amendment, the constitutional history of the United States would be even more dramatically different. Only eight of the eleven states operating under the Constitution when the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states voted to ratify it in the eighteenth century; if states admitted later were not eligible to ratify it, then the Bill of Rights did not become part of the Constitution until 1939, when Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ceremonially ratified the first ten amendments,(135) marking the 150th anniversary of their drafting. Not even the most extreme of extremists appears to have put forward such a claim.
http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html

It seems to me that more states means more required to ratify. The Constitution is a little unclear, but history is not.

[Swmorgan77]

What the Hell!!!!

My Head is spinning. Any explanation as to where it went?

Good question.

[thomj76]

The story on this, is that after the occupation of DC during War of 1812, records were gone, burnt, w/e. James Monroe asked John Quincy Adams what was the standing if this amendment. IT needed only one more state to ratify it for it to pass. The new states would not be allowed to ratify due to the fact that were not in exstence during the initial round.

NY quashed it in 1828. The last states to list it on the books were Colorado and Wyoming.

Lawyers during the early 1800's belonged to the IBA "International Bar Association" out of London.

Go west young man, new immigrants in, and slowly it fades into oblivion "resolved" during the compromise of 1876 if I am not mistaken (which I could be, this is all coming from my memory; I studied this in detail about a decade ago)

:mad:


I found this a while back. Its pretty interesting:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/13essay.html

[Mesogen]

Holy crap! This is some damned interesting stuff.

I had absolutely no idea.