PDA

View Full Version : The Missing 13th Amendment




Michael Landon
11-08-2008, 02:12 PM
This is interesting...

The Missing 13th Amendment

David M. Dodge, Researcher, Date 08/01/91

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 (1991), 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 the U.S. 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 Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today.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.

The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues:

What does the Amendment mean? and,
Was the Amendment ratified?
Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance.

MEANING of the 13th Amendment
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"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."
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure; unimportant. The references to "nobility," "honour," "emperor," "king," and "prince," lead us to dismiss this Amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. The U.S. modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, make anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance:

First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787);
Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the American Revolution. We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies.

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved.

Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception -- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war". Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy's counter- revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks.

Read the rest at:
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/13th-amend.shtml

sratiug
11-08-2008, 02:29 PM
Yes I have pointed out on more than one occasion that state licensed lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, and such are forbidden under the constitution. No person can be granted more rights than any other in this country. Even a police officer has no more right to carry a gun than anyone else.


"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or..."

Notice the "or", which means no one can accept titles from our government or foreign ones. Many states have BAR association monopolies as well. If we are not for free trade in the legal profession we are spitting in the wind. Lawyers and bankers run our country. Kill the banks and the BAR.

It is said BAR doesn't stand for "British Accredited Registry", but then what does it stand for?

gb13
11-08-2008, 03:41 PM
Great article!

TastyWheat
11-08-2008, 03:47 PM
This makes so much sense. I always contemplate how much better things would be without so many lawyers in Congress.

alaric
11-08-2008, 03:58 PM
I posted a while ago that this is how Ron could have cleaned house (pun intended), but certainly not in such great detail!

Aratus
11-08-2008, 04:03 PM
U.E is a title up in canada. you inherit the same... if loyal to the british crown!

WayBehind
11-08-2008, 04:07 PM
Actually, Ron Paul is a doctor, so he wouldn't be able to serve in Congress either.

alaric
11-08-2008, 10:08 PM
Actually, Ron Paul is a doctor, so he wouldn't be able to serve in Congress either.

doctor is not a title of no-bility, just a-bility!

Michael Landon
11-08-2008, 10:13 PM
There is more information about the 13th Amendment at this website:

http://www.amendment-13.org/

- ML

Alawn
11-08-2008, 11:07 PM
Yes I have pointed out on more than one occasion that state licensed lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, and such are forbidden under the constitution. No person can be granted more rights than any other in this country. Even a police officer has no more right to carry a gun than anyone else.



Notice the "or", which means no one can accept titles from our government or foreign ones. Many states have BAR association monopolies as well. If we are not for free trade in the legal profession we are spitting in the wind. Lawyers and bankers run our country. Kill the banks and the BAR.

It is said BAR doesn't stand for "British Accredited Registry", but then what does it stand for?


doctor is not a title of no-bility, just a-bility!

Lawyers are not nobility. That is just stupid. This one of those dumb issues used to confuse and discredit people on our side like that dumb all caps thing. And the bar is not an acronym. It literally refers a bar. There was a bar dividing the audience section of the court with the section that has the lawyers and the judge.

Original_Intent
11-08-2008, 11:11 PM
Lawyers are not nobility. That is just stupid. This one of those dumb issues used to confuse and discredit people on our side like that dumb all caps thing. And the bar is not an acronym. It literally refers a bar. There was a bar that dividing the audience section of the court with the section that has the lawyers and the judge.

What is esq(uire)?

scandinaviany3
11-08-2008, 11:16 PM
is this real and are you saying this is still in effect or was cancelled by the congress in the civil war?

scandinaviany3
11-08-2008, 11:25 PM
"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."

If this were real then...

No way obama could be president. Given his move to Southeast asia to go to school.

Became a citizen--"honour", received state paid schooling..."present and emolument"

Also all modern day congressman but ron paul would be out on the backsides...

all multinationals are foreign powers.

BeFranklin
11-09-2008, 02:25 AM
"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."

If this were real then...

No way obama could be president. Given his move to Southeast asia to go to school.

Became a citizen--"honour", received state paid schooling..."present and emolument"

Also all modern day congressman but ron paul would be out on the backsides...

all multinationals are foreign powers.

Yeah, it would kindof put a damper on the whole NWO thing.

FYI: If you want to speak softly, this amendment could be repassed just like the 27th amendment was - 200 years after it was introduced.

free.alive
11-09-2008, 03:11 AM
History of the American Bar Association
Contents

* Download PDF Version PDF
* ABA Governance
* ABA Structure
o Board of Governors
o Officers
o Sections, Divisions, Committees, Task Forces, Forums, and Conference Groups
o Fund for Justice and Education
o Offices
o Govermental Affairs
o Staff
* Sections, Divisions and Forums
* Committees, Commissions and Other Entities
* Affiliated Organziations With Delegates In The House

The ABA was founded on August 21,1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 100 lawyers from 21 states. The legal profession as we know it today barely existed at that time. Lawyers were generally sole practitioners who trained under a system of apprenticeship. There was no national code of ethics; there was no national organization to serve as a forum for discussion of the increasingly intricate issues involved in legal practice.

The first ABA constitution, which is still substantially the charter of the association, defined the purpose of the ABA as being for "the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, the promotion of the administration of justice and a uniformity of legislation throughout the country...."

Today, the stated mission of the American Bar Association is "to be the national representative of the legal profession, serving the public and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect for the law."

from: http://www.abanet.org/about/history.html

free.alive
11-09-2008, 03:13 AM
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_(law)

free.alive
11-09-2008, 03:15 AM
Seems to be a relic of some sort of old informal British caste system.

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

sratiug
11-09-2008, 10:51 AM
Lawyers are not nobility. That is just stupid. This one of those dumb issues used to confuse and discredit people on our side like that dumb all caps thing. And the bar is not an acronym. It literally refers a bar. There was a bar dividing the audience section of the court with the section that has the lawyers and the judge.

No, it is not stupid. It is real. It is the problem in this country. How can anyone be against free trade in the courts? Voluntary BAR associations are one thing, mandatory is another. There are many states with mandatory BAR associations. Even states without them require state licensing of lawyers. The legal profession benefits from conflict in the courts, just as the medical profession benefits from sickness. Legally "titled" lawyers don't want any competition from people that don't spend years and gobs of money paying their way into their fraternity. Government meddling in these professions is catastrophic for our nation.


Judge Saffold in Horst v. Moses, an Alabama case from 1872 (48 Ala. 129). "[t]o confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order.... [The purpose of the prohibition on titles of nobility in the state constitution] is to preserve the equality of citizens in respect to their public and private rights."

John of Des Moines
11-09-2008, 05:25 PM
This come up some time back: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=16174&highlight=13th