digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The "Missing" 13th Amendment, an odd Constitution story

dailykos.com — So this is either one of the worst things ever to happen to the Constitution, or one of the most elaborate web hoaxes ever. 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...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • XxERMxX, on 10/11/2007, -6/+40Too bad it's not still aknowleged.
    Sounds like a great idea.
    • janeuner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25I think Article 1, section 9 was sufficient. Titles of nobility (or the lack thereof) no longer give those persons special rights, as was the case 2 centuries ago.
    • oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28So if a person has been knighted by the queen, they are to no longer be considered a citizen?
      • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19They just can't accept the honor unless it is approved by congress prior.
        • mtekk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Which congress has never done, AFAIK...
        • mtekk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Correction to my previous comment, looks like Congress has approved such things, according to Wikipedia, Norman Schwarzkopf received permission from Congress for his knighting.
      • mtekk, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Under the 'old' 13th amendment, yes.
    • rolf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25It's not acknowledged because it has been debunked:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Unratified_amendments

      http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html
      • RayLuxuryYacht, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1furthermore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment#Long-standing_misimpression
      • notque, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The debunking is incorrect at least in regards to the need for additional states to ratify as they were added to the union. Only the states that were a part of the discussion when an amendment was added must ratify, and thus 3/4th of those at the time, not any additional states added later.

        Research by David M. Dodge

        RATIONALES (for Ratification)
        Undeterred, Sen. Mitchell wrote that, "Article XIII did not receive the three-fourths vote required from the states within the time limit to be ratified." (Although his language is imprecise, Sen. Mitchell seems to concede that although the Amendment had failed to satisfy the "time limit", the required three-quarters of the states did vote to ratify.)
        Dodge replies: "Contrary to your assertion.., there was no time limit for amendment ratification in 1811. Any time limit is now established by Congress in the Resolves for proposed amendments."
        In fact, ratification time limits didn't start until 1917, when Sect. 3 of the Eighteenth Amendment stated that, "This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified within seven years from the date of submission ... to the States by Congress." A similar time limit is now included on other proposed Amendments, but there was no specified time limit when the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in 1810 or ratified in 1819.
        Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some rationale, somewhere, that would defeat Dodge's persistence. Although Sen. Mitchell implicitly conceded that his "published by error" and "time limit" arguments were invalid, he continued to grope for reasons to dispute the ratification: "... regardless of whether the state of Virginia did ratify the proposed Thirteenth Amendment... on March 12, 1819, this approval would not have been sufficient to amend the Constitution.
        In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend the Constitution. According to your own research, Virginia would have only been the thirteenth state to approve the proposed amendment." Dodge replies: "Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent on the question of whether or not the framers meant three-fourths of the states at the time the proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification, or three-fourths of the states that exist at some future point in time. Since only the existing states were involved in the debate and vote of Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable that ratification be limited to those States that took an active part in the Amendment process."
        Dodge demonstrated this rationale by pointing out that, "President Monroe had his Secretary of State... [ask the] governors of Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut, in January, 1818, as to the status of the amendment in their respective states. The four new states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were added to the union between 1810 and 1818 were not even considered."
        From a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states would be included in the ratification process. But bear in mind that our perspective is based on life in a stable nation that's added only five new states in this century -- about one every eighteen years. However, between 1803 and 1821 (when the Thirteenth Amendment ratification drama unfolded), they added eight states -- almost one new state every two years. This rapid national growth undoubtedly fostered national attitudes different from our own. The government had to be filled with the euphoria of a growing Republic that expected to quickly add new states all the way to the Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama. The government would not willingly compromise or complicate that growth potential with procedural obstacles; to involve every new state in each on-going ratification could inadvertently slow the nation's growth.
        For example, if a territory petitioned to join the Union while an Amendment was being considered, its access to statehood might depend on whether the territory expected to ratify or reject a proposed amendment. If the territory was expected to ratify the proposed Amendment government, officials who favored the Amendment might try to accelerate the territory's entry into the Union. On the other hand, those opposed to the Amendment might try to slow or even deny a particular territory's statehood. These complications could unnecessarily slow the entry of new states into the nation, or restrict the nation's ability to pass new Amendments. Neither possibility could appeal to politicians. Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives resolved to ask only Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision on ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment -- they did not ask for the decisions of the four new states. Since the new states had Representatives in the House who did not protest when the resolve was passed, it's apparent that even the new states agreed that they should not be included in the ratification process.
        In 1818, the President, the House of Representatives, the Secretary of State, the four "new" states, and the seventeen "old" states, all clearly believed that the support of just thirteen states was required to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment. That being so, Virginia's vote to ratify was legally sufficient to ratify the "missing' Amendment in 1819 (and would still be so today).
        • SonicAD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Then why did it take 38 states to pass what became the 27th amendment, which was proposed at the same time as the Bill of Rights?
    • shaitanx, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Too bad its spelled acknowledged..
      • Misanthrope, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Yeah, well "its" should have an apostrophe...what's your point?
        • MrEguy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Touchée!! :-)
        • aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, it should have an apostrophe.
          Listen everyone: If you would say "it is," add the apostrophe. If you are talking about an object owning something, leave it out.
        • aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, it should have an apostrophe.
          Listen everyone: If you would say "it is," add the apostrophe. If you are talking about an object owning something, leave it out.
    • koko775, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Sorry to top-post, but this is sensationalist. See the following section of the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment#Long-standing_misimpression

      It was thought to be ratified, but due to a misunderstanding it was thought ratified even though the threshold for ratification became 14 states rather than 13 when a new state joined the union, meaning that there was just barely not enough votes.
    • caponumen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yes this has been verified many times in the past and is correct.
      It is obvious why this was illegally removed.

      The key term: "emolument of any kind whatever"
      Emolument is defined: compensation received.
      Therefore: "compensation received from any foreign power of any kind whatever."

      This clearly would have very wide ranging protections from foreign powers and would most likely eliminate most all of those occupying all the branches of power in this so called union.
  • obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36It's weird to see all of those pictures of various constitutions with something else in the place of the familiar XIII.
    • BannerofVelasco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8That was the point of the article, the rest of was conspiracy satire which seems lost on most people here, as it was with the Dkos gang. I should know, I wrote it. The intent of the article was to show how many states were still printing the article/amendment all the way till 1868, could you imagine that today? California and Nebraska printing two different version of the Constitution? Like I said, it is a hell of a story, which is why I shared since there are now images of all those books now online. It is a funny historical curiosity.

      And Jesus, don't miss word your point about using an ad hominem attacks to debunk a story. People here, and there freaking out, bunch of English syntax extremist on here. And for the other knuckleheads who said I was promoting a conspiracy, I linked and quoted a site that debunked the whole thing. If I was trying to cherry pick, why would I include something that would totally prove it wrong? Digg commenters are worse than Daily Kos commenters sometimes.

      That's right, though, a notorious Ron Paul fanboy here on Digg is a popular author on Daily Kos. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Then pass the pipe.
      • rhinopig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4*cough cough* Man this is some good political commentator fact *****. *pass*
        • BannerofVelasco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3* cough cough * That toke was for the moderates, they have driven all us unicorns into the sea yet. Thanks for suffering through my rural Texas English.
  • smartsingh24, on 10/11/2007, -22/+10If only someone had the guts to get rid of Mr. 9/11
    • Phil13, on 10/11/2007, -21/+2Why don't you tough guy instead of running your fingers/mouth?
      • obxjdt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Idiot.....
        • reyalp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That was both extremely witty and very representative of your capacity to insult someone.
  • skytoucher, on 10/11/2007, -8/+226"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

    -Thomas Jefferson
    • bonked, on 10/11/2007, -15/+28Why would anyone dig this comment down? Do you not understand who Thomas Jefferson is - or do you just not like the truth.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21Exactly. They do not like the truth. Jefferson - despite his alleged flaws - was a truly brilliant man. Not just Americans, but everyone should read his words from time to time, stock up on his wisdom.
      • jheimark, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4The devil can quote Jefferson for his purpose.
        • notque, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12And one can quote Jefferson in a rational, and relevant manner as shown above.
          • spinchange, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I'm personally more of a "fan" of Hamilton than Jefferson if you will, but the brilliance of your comment, jheimark, is that even Jefferson would agree with it...
      • markgl, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1yeah well, if I quoted bush you'd digg it down. he is a president too!!!
        • BigTrey, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Bush doesn't count!
        • gwolf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Bush could never be so eloquent.
        • ummagummas08, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Quote bush and tell me one 'gem' if you will of an intelligent statement made by bush.
        • BelXul, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I got one!!!!

          "Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other." - George W. Bush

          So what does that make us?
      • anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Because there's this thing called a "topic," and some of us dislike it when people spam Digg pages unrelated to their personal agendas with comments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
    • janeuner, on 10/11/2007, -18/+8A quote from 1778, before the US Constitution was drafted. Try again~
      http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s11.html
      • inhaler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27Try again? What relevance does the quote have compared to the time the constitution was drafted? It's not like the truth in it became outdated. Jefferson was acknowledging a fundamental problem human beings have when they gain power.
      • Jist, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1yeah, total run-on sentence.
      • phaed, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1He means: "Try again to show me the truth. Cause I found an excuse to turn away from it yet again."
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Following proper procedures--by not enacting an amendment that lacked sufficient approval by the states--is hardly tyranny.

      Wouldn't it be great if we started adding amendments now without following any democratic procedures? Would certainly make Bush's job easier...
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3.....but shy of it being printed on the constitution, that's what the bush administration has been doing all along.
      • notque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Research done by David M. Dodge

        INSULT TO INJURY
        Apparently persuaded by Dodge's various arguments and proofs that the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional requirements for ratification, Mr. Hartgrove (National Archives) wrote back that Virginia had nevertheless failed to satisfy the bureaucracy's procedural requirements for ratification:
        "Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United States is empowered to certify that he has in his custody the correct number of state certificates of ratification of a proposed Constitutional amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States of America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was performed by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that amendment failed to become the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
        This is an extraordinary admission. Mr. Hartgrove implicitly concedes that the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified by Virginia and satisfied the Constitution's ratification requirements. However, Hartgrove then insists that the ratification was nevertheless justly denied because the Secretary of State was not properly notified with a "certificate of ratification". In other words, the government's last, best argument that the Thirteenth Amendment was not ratified boils down to this: Though the Amendment satisfied Constitutional requirement for ratification, it is nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply because a single, official sheet of paper is missing in Washington. Mr. Hartgrove implies that despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in the Union voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators and the people of this nation should be denied because somebody screwed up and lost a single "certificate of ratification". This "certificate" may be missing because either 1) Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or 2) the notice was "lost in the mail; or 3) the notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C.
        This final excuse insults every American's political rights, but Mr. Hartgrove nevertheless offers a glimmer of hope: If the National Archives "received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we would inform Congress and await further developments." In other words, the issue of whether this Thirteenth Amendment was ratified and is, or is not, a legitimate Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not merely a historical curiosity -- the ratification issue is still alive.
        (2) But most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining argument against the Thirteenth Amendment's ratification is a procedural error involving the absence of a "certificate of ratification".
        Dodge countered Hartgrove's procedure argument by citing some of the ratification procedures recorded for other states when the Thirteenth Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the Journal of the House of Representatives. 11th Congress, 2nd Session, at p. 241, a "letter" (not a "certificate of ratification") from the Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio's ratification was submitted not to the Secretary of State but rather to the House of Representatives where it "was read and ordered to lie on the table." Likewise, "The Kentucky ratification was also returned to the House, while Maryland's earlier ratification is not listed as having been returned to Congress."
        The House Journal implies that since Ohio and Kentucky were not required to notify the Secretary of State of their ratification decisions, there was likewise no requirement that Virginia file a "certificate of ratification" with the Secretary of State. Again, despite arguments to the contrary, it appears that the "missing" Amendment was Constitutionally ratified and should not be denied because of some possible procedural error.
    • pogfreak, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0“Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least.”

      -Thomas Jefferson
  • silencerider151, on 10/11/2007, -43/+6613th article != 13th amendment.
    • bencefeher, on 10/11/2007, -15/+6That's exactly what I was thinking. Did you and I miss something?
    • slipgrid, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18They are amendments. It's not an original part of the US Constitution, but an article added at a later time.
    • bravo1995, on 10/11/2007, -1/+41It's Article XIII of the Amendments to the Constitution.

      It's more commonly (and simply) known as the Thirteenth Amendment.
  • mynameistim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9interesting.
  • nofrak1, on 10/11/2007, -7/+26Usually DailyKos isn't worth reading, but this is interesting as hell. Before you go attacking Rudy for something he might not deserve (as opposed to the many things he does deserve to be attacked for), he might well have gotten congressional approval. Also, an honorary title like KBE might not qualify for their definition of title, which would in my mind include some sort of land grant.

    Also I don't see the lawyer connection. Somebody care to explain it for me?
    • faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17"...the reason lawyer[s] would have been prohibited is because the International Bar Association was charted by the King of England and headquartered in London.. [but] most of our lawyers [today] belong to the ABA..." so this amendment, even if ratified would not prohibit lawyers being citizens.
      • washingtonydc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8a little OT, but lawyers don't need to be members of the ABA. It's not required to practice law. It's really just a professional group so somebody has an excuse to make monthly newsletters. To practice law, you have to be member of the state bar you're practicing in.
        • ubuwalker31, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3What everyone has to realize when reading this very interesting argument about the ratification of the missing 13th Amendment, is that its primary proponents are tax protesters and neo-nazis. The person who came up with the theory was a far right winger who hates lawyers. http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html has a great debunk of this myth, as does the article on wikipedia.

          Read this, and alarm bells should go off immediately about the veracity of this story:
          http://web.archive.org/web/20021230015631/http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3842
          • spinchange, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yeah the Lawyer connection is really kind of ludicrous - a perfunctory knowledge of early American History / Founders / Constitutional Framers will reveal that the majority of them were in fact, lawyers!

            See also washingtonydc's comment.
      • texpundit, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14"so this amendment, even if ratified would not prohibit lawyers being citizens."

        Dammit! :-(
    • HUKI365, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17Sensationalist at best, downright ***** at worst. The amendment if ratified would only restrict those lawyers (or anyone else) who accepted the title. The amount of IBA members would be infinitesimal. Also there would be an argument as to whether membership of an international organisation - even chartered by the King - would count.
      • JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I thought it was interesting. Wait a minute. You spell organization with an 's.' HE'S A REDCOAT! GET HIM!
    • neckfire, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I thought it was because lawyers could go by the title "John Doe, Esquire", a title of the English gentry, which implies a ruling class. Ruling class *should* not be a part of the American system, even though any idiot can clearly see that it does exist in one form or another.
    • Rainemaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Attorneys (at least here in Florida) very rarely use the designation of "Esquire". It is a formal term which is usually reserved for formal correspondence, eg. To: John Smith, Esq. A lot of times you can spot a young attorney off the bat because they will go as far as to include it in their signature. This is by and far the exception to the rule, as it is considered pretentious/tacky to do so.
    • BelXul, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I also remember reading many years ago that BAR stands for British Accreditation Regency. In the case of the IBA, I can see it applying, but I'm not sure why there would have to be an American British Accreditation Regency Association. To phrase it another way, why would American lawyers need British accreditation to practice law in the US?
      • Rainemaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You got me curious (I had heard this definition below before, but I thought it was BS)
        Anyway, wiki thinks this is it.

        The use of the term bar to mean "the whole body of lawyers, the legal profession" comes ultimately from English custom. In the early 16th century, a railing divided the hall in the Inns of Court, with students occupying the body of the hall and readers or Benchers on the other side. Students who officially became lawyers crossed the symbolic physical barrier and were "admitted to the bar".[2] Later, this was popularly assumed to mean the wooden railing marking off the area around the judge's seat in a courtroom, where prisoners stood for arraignment and where a barrister stood to plead. In modern courtrooms, a railing may still be in place to enclose the space which is occupied by legal counsel as well as the criminal defendants and civil litigants who have business pending before the court.
  • faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -21/+6Inaccurate: there is no evidence Virginia ever ratified the amendment.
    http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html
  • fucter, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2But, is this a hoax?
  • abw1987, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Can someone copy and paste the story? My company blocks the daily kos.
    • ebob9, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17The "Missing" 13th Amendment, an odd Constitution story
      by pinche tejano
      Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:35:20 PM PDT

      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:

      * pinche tejano's diary :: ::
      *

      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.
    • fucter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4its a long story, with many pics
    • thechr0nic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3do what the rest of us do, when we are blocked by corporate firewalls. use a proxy.
      I use hidemyass.com but there are thousands of other free proxies available which can be found by a quick google search.
    • manixrock, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Or you could use google's translate service to translate from english to english which just gives you the original page and is probably faster than a proxy:

      http://www.google.com/translate?langpair=en|en&hl=en&ie=UTF8&u=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/10/155241/107

      notice the "u=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/10/155241/107" at the end. You can replace the adress with any address you want and you've got your own fast google proxy.
  • plutpwnium, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Its way too long and there are too many images to just copy and paste... wait until its mirrored. :(
  • yargthepirate, on 10/11/2007, -12/+45FTA: "Whenever someone calls someone else an extremist, it's usually because they are right about something that someone fears coming to light."
    Thank you Daily Kos. I'm sure the guys who explode themselves are right, and I'm just worried about the thing they're right about.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5The guys who explode themselves or kill others are dangerous lunatics - fanatics, not simply extremists. I'm extreme in some of my beliefs, but I wouldn't kill anyone or blow myself up over them. Let's not be *extreme* in our use of language.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10Actually, I'd say this just proves the point. They are right about many things, mainly being that the west has totally pissed on the middle east for years.

      It's just how they go about trying to fix that that is so utterly wrong.
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Well, the link actually explains why he considers these people extremists. Read this and tell me who has the hidden agenda: http://web.archive.org/web/20021230015631/http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3842
      • w3bsmith, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I happen to be a believer in the lost 13th amendment. Am I an extremist?
  • zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -7/+34FTA: "Whenever someone calls someone else an extremist, it's usually because they are right about something that someone fears coming to light."

    This statement discredited the entire article for me. Islamist and Christian extremists are not called extremists because we're afraid they're right, it's because they take things too seriously, and purposefully misinterpret information to suit their own motives. Oh, and they tend to overreact to everything just a little bit.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4I would call them fanatics, not simply extremist. An extremist is someone who holds an extreme interpretation of a position, or a philosophy. Someone who kills or suicides based on such a position is much worse - dangerously insane, perhaps.
    • The_Wallbanger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Poor choice of words for the author, but I'm more concerned about you. How does a poor word choice discredit the entire body of historical authenticity? Aren't you, in your own way, overreacting just a little bit?
    • zedstream, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I think the author is referring to an ad hominem attack, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. He shouldn't have said "usually", but instead should have modified with "often" or "sometimes". In no way should the author's point be taken to mean that some people are not extremists.
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The fact of the matter is that the people who argue that the TON amendment is part of the constitution are extremists....neo-nazis, tax protesters, and far right lawyer bashers.
  • Babykitkat, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Movie about our Constitution
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4315834925200441495&hl=en
    • sofa0ne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Allow me to state that the intro of your video alone would dissuade most who even attempt to watch it.
      He lost me at "blades of grass and a lawnmower singing hymns."
      I guess this is what happens when Public Access television finds it's way to the internet.

      I am not interested in what he is attempting to teach but rather wonder why he keeps droning on...
      I can't stop watching it's like a train wreck...

      Ohh I forgot... WTF does this have to do with this article?
    • DrakeGTA, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRg2OIEMZwQ
  • reidhoch, on 10/11/2007, -2/+42http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
    • ahknight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Now _that_ is informative.
    • ChronoMojo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Specifically this part:

      " Some people claim that the TONA actually was properly ratified and that it has been suppressed as part of a vast conspiracy orchestrated by attorneys who do not wish to forfeit their American citizenship when they use the title "Esquire" after their last name (although Esquire, even in the United Kingdom, is not a title of nobility). "

      Besides that, the amendment states that the honor cannot be accepted without congressional approval. I'm relatively certain that in most of the cases, our congress would approve of someone from the US being knighted.
    • mastaphoo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"This article does not cite any references or sources."

      Wikipedia's flaw, check before you comment.
    • TeatimeGrommit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1But it does sound a lot more plausible than the idea that millions of people were so confused that they just "forgot" about a piece of the Constitution, that prior printings could be secretly gathered and destroyed, that the knights of the illuminati of the grey aliens stripped us of important legal protection so they could install god-king Megatron in the year 2050.
  • CaptMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+66While interesting, much of the article is nonsense. The amendement wasn't to keep lawyers out of the government, it was to keep people from holding royal titles from other governments, plain and simple. Note that it also strips citizenship from people with titles. I don't think they were trying to kick all lawyers out of the country. An interesting side effect if this ever were actually ratified would be the stripping of citizenship from people like George Bush (the first one) and Bill Gates, both of whom have titles from foreign governments.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
    • InsomniaSlim, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Besides, if you were to outlaw titles such as "esquire," which results from a law degree, does that mean PhD is out, as well?

      Also, I think most titles from foreign governments for citizens of the US are with Allies of the US anyway; which means Congress would allow them to be granted (thus keeping in terms with the letter of the amendment, if not the spirit).
      • fogster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3No. The problem with "Esquire" is that it was granted by the British government. A Ph.D. is not granted by a foreign government, and therefore wouldn't have been a problem.
        • spinchange, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The real nonsense is that a great deal of the people who actually wrote and ratified the Constitution were in fact, *lawyers* (!) Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, et al...the guys who wrote the Federalist Papers?!? Even Mentioned as "players" in this article -- President James Monroe and (at the time Sec of State) President John Q Adams were also Attorneys! Sorry, I don't think the framers wanted to write themselves out of jobs Does anyone think the framers really wanted to exclude themselves ??
  • emdub, on 10/11/2007, -17/+4Man, how sneaky of GW Bush to timewalk back a couple hundred years and alter the Constitution without anyone noticing! Thank you DailyKos for exposing yet another scandal toward impeaching the most sinister, plotting, scheming, tricksy, malicious leader our country has ever known.
  • Dolomite, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4If this is true, Bush will have alot of explaining to do. Did he really think he would get away with this?
    • Sirckus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Uhhh... Bush is responsible for a lot of things in the world... however even *I* can't connect him to ratification of any amendments prior to him being alive.
      • cjpro, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yet, students at my school do that all the time. "George W. Bush is the cause of World War II." "Dubya did the depression."
  • Sirckus, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1This has been on my "radar" for quite some time... but a lot of people I mention it to don't really want to talk about it. Guess it's too far out there to be considered 'real'

    However, I copied this very well written article from the internet some time ago and have kept it in my files. the By line on the file that I have is "David M. Dodge, Researcher, Date 08/01/91"

    Unfortunately I have no way to share the document that I copied. However, more enterprising people than myself should be able to find the write-up and share it.
    • notque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://www.freedomdomain.com/orig13th00.html
      • notque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS
        In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes: "In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76." In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73(or 74).
        It's not yet clear whether the Thirteenth Amendment was published in Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in anticipation of Virginia's ratification, or as part of a plot to discredit the Amendment by making is appear that only twelve States had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying the Thirteenth Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact, it's not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed -- the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its existence.
        However, because the notes authors reported no further references to the Thirteenth Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia's ratification. This opinion -- assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment -- has persisted to this day. In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia (which had contained the Thirteenth Amendment for 30 years). It was at that time that one of the code's revisers (a lawyer named Patton) wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States. This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of State John Quincy Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818, before Virginia's ratification in 1819. (Even today, the Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this Thirteenth Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the requisite thirteen, had ratified.)
        However, despite Clayton's opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860)
        Once again the Thirteenth Amendment was caught in the riptides of American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, signaling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.
        Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. That resolve to amend read:
        "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.
        In the tumult of 1865, the original Thirteenth Amendment was removed from our Constitution. In a Congressional Resolve to amend dated December 5, 1864, another 13th Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. When, on January 13, 1865, a two-thirds vote was taken in the House of Representatives for proposing the currently presented 13th Amendment "in honor of the immortal and sublime event" the House adjourned. It was presented to the States on February 1, 1865 for ratification. On April 9, 1865 the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states rights) was assassinated, dying on April 15th. On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited "titles of nobility" and "honors".
        • notque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The most intriguing discovery was the 1868 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment and the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1868 Colorado edition.
          • notque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A RATIFICATION
            After examining Dodge's evidence of multiple publications of the "missing" Amendment, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove conceded the Amendment had been published by several states and was ratified by twelve of the seventeen states in the Union in 1810. However, because the Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states vote to ratify an Amendment. Mitchell and Hartgrove insisted that the Thirteenth Amendment was published in error because it was passed by only twelve, not thirteen States. Dodge investigated which seventeen states were in the Union at the time the Amendment was proposed, which states had ratified, which states had rejected the amendment, and determined that the issue hung on whether one last state (Virginia) had or had not, voted to ratify.
            After several years of searching the Virginia state archive, Dodge made a crucial discovery: In Spring of 1991, he found a misplaced copy of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code which included the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment. Dodge notes that, curiously, "There is no public record that shows this book [the 1819 Virginia Civil Code] exists. It is not catalogued as a holding of the Library of Congress nor is it in the National Union Catalogue. Neither the state law library nor the law school in Portland were able to find any trace that this book exists in any of their computer programs."
            (1) Dodge sent photo-copies of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code to Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove, and explained that, "Under legislative construction, it is considered prima facie evidence that what is published as the official acts of the legislature are the official acts." By publishing the Amendment as ratified in an official publication, Virginia demonstrated: 1) that they knew they were the last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this Thirteenth Amendment; 2) that they had voted to ratify the Amendment; and 3) that they were publishing the Amendment in a special edition of their Civil Code as an official notice to the world that the Amendment had indeed been ratified.
            Dodge concluded, "Unless there is competing evidence to the contrary, it must be held that the Constitution of the United States was officially amended to exclude from its body of citizens any who accepted or claimed a title of nobility or accepted any special favors. Foremost in this category of ex-citizens are bankers and lawyers."
  • sirlancelot88, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23This "13th amendment" was never actually in the Constitution. It was proposed, then discarded as a sufficient number of states did not vote to ratify it. Wikipedia has more on the subjet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
    • Maarek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Seems to me that the article addresses this.
    • generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"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

      ...

      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."

      That's from a quote from another site in that article.
      • notque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Except that there have been at least one case where that very thing occurred.

        "Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent on the question of whether or not the framers meant three-fourths of the states at the time the proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification, or three-fourths of the states that exist at some future point in time. Since only the existing states were involved in the debate and vote of Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable that ratification be limited to those States that took an active part in the Amendment process."

        Dodge demonstrated this rationale by pointing out that, "President Monroe had his Secretary of State... [ask the] governors of Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut, in January, 1818, as to the status of the amendment in their respective states. The four new states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were added to the union between 1810 and 1818 were not even considered."
  • mikehrp, on 10/11/2007, -13/+3Bubba Clinton was a lawyer too. Should he not have been allowed to be president?
  • HarryBauzonia, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4DailyKos is not a news source.
    Dugg down as "wrong topic".
    • uptown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I know, right? I didn't see a single story about Paris Hilton or Britney Spears on his site. WTF?
  • goingstreaking, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0The TONA (title of nobility amendment), which would have been amdmnt 13 if ratified only received ratification from 12 states. There is no ratification date of closure so it potentially could be voted on and ratified today...
  • DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1"Whenever someone calls someone else an extremist, it's usually because they are right about something that someone fears coming to light."

    What an assclown. The word extremist just means you're doing or saying something that's extreme. Claims that the government secretly repealed an amendment? Almost as extreme as skiing down Mt Everest.
    • mozillauser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Skiing down Everest is a surprisingly regular activity relative to the number of people who climb Everest. For example: http://adventuretravel.about.com/b/a/000053.htm

      I agree with your point, but you picked a bad way of expressing it.
      • DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1OK, climbing everest is pretty extreme in and of itself.
    • vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1In whose opinion is what extreme? Skiing down Mt. Everest might not be that extreme to some people.
  • skrowl, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4DailyKos is a biased, often inaccurate news source.
    Dugg down as "inaccurate".
  • pfpurcell, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0buried b/c I read this 10 years ago.
  • ikcilabd, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Lincoln was a lawyer before he was president. If the 13th wasn't removed, who knows how the war would've ended up.
  • flickboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con002.pdf
  • shootdashit, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5i've been saying for quite some time, why is it we don't trust lawyers unless they're elected to our government? that doesn't make any sense we would trust them. that's part of why i want to vote for ron paul. i trust a doctor who's delivered over 4000 babies over another lawyer.
  • 68024, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1To say that being a US lawyer constitutes a 'title of nobility or honour' via the king of England is a stretch to say the least.
  • zonking, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3This supposed amendment was never ratified and is for the most part put forward by tax cheats who think it's a way to avoid paying taxes. C'mon, folks, don't fall for conspiracy theories.

    Buried as lame.
  • polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"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."

    :)
  • theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6a) the title is totally misleading. The alleged amendment has nothing to do with lawyers (unless the lawyer is certified by the international bar as opposed to the American bar)
    b) it sucks when the only way to prove or disprove a story like this is to go all around the country looking at microfiche.
    • JrGhoull, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1the title IS totally misleading, i'll give u that...but i always think its cool as hell when they discover old things like this...made me think about that bad movie that came out a few years ago about the founding fathers and a lost treasure.
    • zedstream, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"unless the lawyer is certified by the international bar as opposed to the American bar"

      This was the case at the time. There was no American Bar.
    • rasalibre4life, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1the title is "the 'missing' 13th Amendment, an odd Constitutional story"

      how is that misleading? The story is about a 13th amendment that is exempt from todays current records. It is a very odd story about the constitution.
      • anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Well, it's not missing, and it's not odd. The proposed amendment was never ratified, so it's not missing. And countless thousands of proposed amendments have failed to be ratified, so it's not odd.
        • Rojahon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1well, "missing" was put in quotes after all.
  • joel2600, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12wikipedia does talk about how there is a large argument about whether or not this was properly ratified, and this article (aside from the source), does offer some interesting evidence to support the fact that this version of the 13th amendment, did indeed have the support to be ratified.

    you people have offered the following
    - wikipedia
    - old because you've heard this before
    - slamming the source
    - blaming bush

    honestly, from what i've researched so far (albeit not too much, yet), i'm starting to be convinced of the validity of this amendment.
    • nixonismyhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Aside from Constitutional interpretation of ratification rules, this proposed amendment was ratified in a number of states. I work at the Maryland State Archives and have now checked several original records, which show that Maryland ratified this Constitutional amendment. As to what other states have or have not done, that is up to someone with a bit more time and money than I currently possess.

      Also, to the original assertion that this is a "missing" amendment, because it was published in several contemporary books, is absurd. I have seen original Maryland state records that discuss this amendment. But that doesn't make it a nationally ratified amendment. Extrapolating that from the sources is just bad scholarship.
    • TeatimeGrommit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wikipedia also offers actual dates, and points out that even if 13 states ratified it instead of 12, we actually needed 14 at the time.
  • neiltc13, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1"The Constitution"? Uh, what constitution? The constitution of what country?
  • HubbertWins, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4No lawyers working for the government...assuming we could also ban lobbyists, it would truly be paradise on Earth.
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3DailyKos = automatic dig down for inaccurate due to overwhelming past history.
  • Egoist, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5So they found a copy of the constitution, printed 50 years after the original, that has an amendment that was proposed and never ratified. Wow, what a conspiracy!!! I'm 100% sure Halliburton is behind this one.

    Seriously, the people who read Daily KOS are about as gullible and moronic as they come. They simply believe everything that they're spoonfed and no better than *****.
    • JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Wow, you didn't even bother to read the thing did you?
  • atomicfireball, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Not to pick nits, but I'm not sure how much faith I put into this article, since it has in one of the first few paragraphs

    "A loophole that today has given us Sir Rudy Giuliani, Sir Colin Powell and Sir Ronald Reagan."

    Those who have been awarded the KBE can ONLY use the title 'Sir' before their name if they come from a country where the Queen is the acknowledged Head of State. Obviously, these three Americans do not, and so this foundational statement is not true. It rather makes me question the veracity and integrity of the entire article.

    As for Article 1 §9, it clearly prohibits the granting of noble titles by the United States. None of these three men (including Rudy Giuliani) were awarded the KBE by the United States, so unless someone can prove definitively that this amendment was ratified properly, it has no bearing on whether he can become President.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Your argument is specious.

      The documents authenticity has nothing to do with the reporter's conclusions.
  • goingstreaking, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0I buried this because I read about it 197 years ago when it went around the first time on digg by the pony express. Who cares anyway, we seem to be able to decide who should be citizens and who shouldn't based on far less reasonable grounds than by receiving presents from someone in another country or being referred to as nobility. I am the king at my house. Everyone recognizes it and I have earned it. Does this eliminate me from us citizenship?
  • lannybudd, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1This is as retarded as the argument that courts have no jurisdiction over you if they have a flag with gold fringe, making them an Admiralty court.
    • NaciremaDream, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The Flag doesn't grant authority, its a representation of a Territorial Court, Articl 4, Sec.3 says the Federal Government can make a rules and regulations for its territories and property. If you are a 14th amendment USCitizens, then you are a Subject of the Government like the amendment says, and therefore a possession, and must be tried in a Territorial Court, and not an Article III one, good luck finding a Article 3 court
  • bobotheking, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2*sigh*

    I guess I'll have to pack up my "Paul McCartney for President" campaign...
    • heffae, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Well considering he's not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States He was Kinda out Already. Plus I don't think he has been a resident of the US for at least 14 years (Could be wrong on that one)
      Actually I think there a weak argument that McCain may not be a Natural Born Citizen since he was born in Panama. Though since both his parents were U.S. Citizens claiming he's not a Natural Citizen is a bit silly.
  • Gastrodamus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Here's an idea: do a search.

    http://www.thirdamendment.com/nobility.html
    • BannerofVelasco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah, that link is supplied in the article itself.
  • HiddenCanuck, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2The US "won" the war of 1812? Did anyone loose?
  • bravo1995, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Sorry kiddos, you still need 26 more states to ratify that amendment to make it valid.

    Otherwise, we wouldn't have needed 38 states to ratify the 27th Amendment in 1992. After all, it was presented in the House by James Madison in 1789.
    • JrGhoull, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5they needed 13 at the time (believe it or not, not all the states had been declared states by the time the constitution was written), and according to the article, they got it.
      • bravo1995, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1By the time Virginia "ratified" it, which it still isn't clear they actually ever did, several other states had been added to the Union.

        Had Virginia "ratified" this amendment in 1819, as the article suggests, the amendment would still be a few states short. Louisiana, Illinois, Indiana, and Mississippi had all been admitted to the Union, bringing the total number of states to 21 and the total number of states needed to ratify the amendment to 15.

        You all need to read the article more closely. The amendment is not part of the Constitution because it was never ratified by 3/4 of the states.

        And stop digging me down for stating a plainly obvious fact.
        • NaciremaDream, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1 What about the Congress that ratified the 2nd 13th ??? (the involuntary servitude amendment) , it was deemed unlawful when Reconstruction occured deeming the southern states unlawful governments.

          However, 7 of the said unlawful southern states voted to ratify the 2nd (13th) amendment in 1865 after the Civil War.

          So which is unlawful ?? The 14th amendment ratified by appointed representatives ??

          Or the 14th amendment and the 2nd 13th amendment (involuntary servitude)

          This actually gives the original 13th amendment (title of nobility) more credence, as it shows motive for suppressing it..

          Most likely by those with titles of Nobility.
  • SnowflakePillow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9This article simply isn't true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
    Only one chamber of South Carolina approved the amendment. By the time 12 states had ratified it, Louisiana had joined the union, making the requirement of 14 states to ratify it. Yeah, there are a lot of publications that messed this up, but it's not true.
    • mishabear, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Could be an interesting battle if somone like Bill Gates ran for President. I wonder if states would ratify this in order to keep someone from taking office. Reagan was Knighted as well but it was after his term in office.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This clearly strips citizenship from people getting foreign titles like "Sir."

    It was meant to prevent King George or those who came after from manipulating representatives -- or having other loyalties.

    I would think that it would also prohibit someone from holding allegiance to another group -- nothing should supersede the Constitution. Thus it would prohibit someone from having an oath to a group like Skull and Bones.
    • Herostratus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Precisely what I was thinking. Probably why it was "forgotten"
  • kd102, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Lawyers are not "certified" by nor do they have to "register" with the American Bar Association (or the International Bar Association, for that matter). To practice law in a particular US state, you have to be admitted by that state's bar. That's it. In many states, you don't even need to have attended an ABA certified law school to sit the bar exam. Even if you graduated from law school, never were admitted in any state, and, for some reason, joined the International Bar Association, it is not this organization that is "certifying" you to call yourself an "Esquire." There is no legal significance to the term.
    • NaciremaDream, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1B/S * , then why do they even have the title if it means nothing, get real.
  • NYankee2003, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Buried as INACCURATE. You should do the same. See comments below refering to the wikipedia article.
  • justinkimball, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Wouldn't this supposed amendment have the lovely side-effect of barring campaign donations from multi-national corporations?

    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.

    ..or am I just reading the "accept of any present" part of it wrong?
    • anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0You're pretty much reading the entire thing wrong.

      In case you were wondering, this is why we have lawyers in our government. They go to school to learn how to read things, understand them and interpret their meanings.
      • sentime, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You mean how to spin words to fit what you want? Lawyers can make the word red, really mean blue if they want.

        It clearly states you can't accept presents among other things from kings, princes and foreign states. If I hard to interpret that, it means you can't accept "bribes" from any non US citizen.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.