Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Missing 13th Amendment
The Commentator ^ | 24DEC08 | Unknown

Posted on 12/24/2008 8:25:36 AM PST by Daddynoz

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last
To: drypowder; Daddynoz; BradyLS
There was such an amendment proposed, but it was never ratified, although some publishers did erroneously print it. In any event, it was never intended to keep lawyers out of government, because "Esquire" is not a "title of nobility."

There is an exhaustive discussion of this so-called "missing amendment" here.

61 posted on 12/24/2008 1:04:14 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: mondonico

This is one of the stupidest articles I’ve read in a while. A license to practice law is no more a title of nobility than a license to practice medicine, a license to install electrical service, a license to sell firearms, or a license to cut hair.
....cut...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Maybe, but many states have “separation of powers” provisions. This usually means that legislators cannot serve in executive positions at the same time as serving in the legislature. I have always wondered why this doesn’t apply to “Officers of the Court” serving in the legislative branch.

Any ideas?


62 posted on 12/24/2008 1:37:23 PM PST by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: A. Patriot
This usually means that legislators cannot serve in executive positions at the same time as serving in the legislature. I have always wondered why this doesn’t apply to “Officers of the Court” serving in the legislative branch.

Because the phrase "officer of the court" doesn't mean that every lawyer is a member of the judicial branch. They are not appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, or paid out of the public treasury. It's just a phrase meaning that courts have the power to discipline lawyers who practice before them for professional misconduct.

63 posted on 12/24/2008 1:41:26 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: dsc

“I think it’s part of an attempt to make FR look like a bunch of whackos.”

I think you are right.


64 posted on 12/24/2008 1:44:09 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

That is a great concept for a post..(hint hint), you should put something together and see if anybody salutes. It had not even crossed my mind, I’m uncertain as to how that would be argued either in the courts or on FR. You’re a clever man. I feel dumb, of course I had seen the flag and never did the enquiry as to why is was that way.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeo1z2a/YellowFlag.html


65 posted on 12/24/2008 6:23:32 PM PST by Daddynoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: SalukiLawyer

What do Salukis do, that they need lawyers?

[I have Ibizans...for *them* I could see it as a needful thing]....;D


66 posted on 12/24/2008 8:17:02 PM PST by Salamander (Cursed with Second Sight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SalukiLawyer

Please, stop spamming the threads. Thank you.


67 posted on 12/24/2008 9:33:27 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Daddynoz

Some scans of a book in my possession are on Dodge’s web site. I think it’s true...


68 posted on 12/25/2008 12:07:44 AM PST by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Patriot

The “officer of the court” terminology simply means that the attorney has an obligation to be extremely forthright when dealing with courts as attorneys. It’s not like we get a badge or something. Yes, generally the state supreme court determines who gets to practice law in that state. But the legislature and/or executive determines who gets to practice medicine. Does that mean that doctors should be disqualified from public service in the branches of government that did not issue their licenses?

The Executive Branch of state government controls the issuance of drivers’ licenses. Does that mean state legislators and judges must give up their cars during their tenure, so they won’t be under the control of the executive?

I don’t think you find many lawyer legislators who, at the same time that they hold legislative office, also are judges or represent clients in court. In fact, I believe there are rules in at least some jurisdictions that prohibit it.

That would seem to take care of your separation of powers concern — a rule providing that a lawyer is not permitted to practice law when serving in public office.

Or, are you suggesting that anyone who ever was a lawyer should be barred from public office?

That would be a lot more repugnant to our Constitution.


69 posted on 12/25/2008 11:21:51 AM PST by mondonico (Peace through Superior Firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

‘There was such an amendment proposed, but it was never ratified, although some publishers did erroneously print it. In any event, it was never intended to keep lawyers out of government, because “Esquire” is not a “title of nobility.”’

Yes. It’s not even an official title—it’s a courtesy that lawyers use when corresponding with each other (many lawyers, myself included, use it when addressing mail to each other but NEVER when referring to oneself).

The title “attorney at law” IS an official title in some states, however (for example, in Pennsylvania). However, so is “Professional Engineer.”


70 posted on 12/25/2008 11:25:01 AM PST by mondonico (Peace through Superior Firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Daddynoz

I don’t believe this allegation that is was ratified.

Anyway that amendment wasn’t intended to “keep lawyers out of government”. That would have been a silly and erroneous interpretation of it.


71 posted on 12/27/2008 11:21:44 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The Original 13th Amendment
http://www.amendment-13.org/index.html
Posted on 11/30/2007 11:44:26 AM PST by keyd
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932923/posts


72 posted on 03/20/2009 8:12:02 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson