I read about this when it first was discovered by these 2 guys, Why it hasn’t taken off is just more reason to NEVER TRUST Lawyers, Government Agents, or the Propaganda Press.
tried to search for them, but I think it may be a scam?
Q: What do you call it when a 100-seater bus filled with 99 lawyers goes over a cliff into the sea, and they all drown?
A: Not enough lawyers.
In the 19th century, nobody in or out of government was charged with keeping close track of where amendments were in the ratification process. It was certainly possible that a book or newspaper might have the wrong information. But including an amendment in a book did not constitute a ratification.
Moreover, there was another problem in the 19th century. Even if Virginia had ratified the amendment and brought the number of ratifications up to 3/4 of the states at the time the amendment was proposed, new states had entered the union and new ratifications would have been required.
I’ve read this story before. I believe this is an elaborate internet hoax.
Ok.. Then what is THIS 13th Amendment??
“13th Amendment
Amendment XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
For later read
For later read
Does this mean that the title of “CZAR” is unconstitutional as per this missing amendment?
I believe I am covered under this during the first three months of every year.
TYhe 13th Amendment is called the “Elevator Amendment” because, like most skyscrapers, there is no 13th Floor (bad luck!) and, therefore, the elevator doesn’t stop there.
I smell Internet hoax!
I suppose "New" Constitutions were printed and distributed after each Amendment was adopted, in 1795, and 1804, prior to the copy in question. Presumably Amendments cannot annul the body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Whether that has in fact happened remains to be seen.
I suppose "New" Constitutions were printed and distributed after each Amendment was adopted, in 1795, and 1804, prior to the copy in question. Presumably Amendments cannot annul the body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Whether that has in fact happened remains to be seen.
FWD FWD FWD this to everyone on your mailing list and Bill Gates will contribute $1 billion to the RNC.
It’s real. There was a 13th Amendment passed during the War of 1812, and ratified by enough states to make 3/4.
However, the purpose was not to bar lawyers from serving in government. That is an absurd interpretation.
The purpose was to prevent anyone from receiving anything of value from a foreign government from also serving in our government. In 1812, the British occupied Washington, D.C. for a time, and our leaders thought the British might offer land to prominent leaders in exchange for their loyalty. Since this would not be covered under treason, Congress and the States passed the 13th Amendment so that anyone thinking about joining the British would decide the risk too high.
After the War of 1812 ended, most people ignored this Amendment. It does show up in some but not most copies of the Constitution with Amendments published after 1815-1820.
Yeah - if only....
I think there’s about five more topics about this crap.
The “Lost” Thirteenth Amendment
Bank Index
Posted on 08/18/2002 5:32:42 AM PDT by Suzie_Cue
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/735109/posts
War Dept. document from 1825 reveals critical clue
to missing 13th Amendment (tin foil hat alert)
Idaho Observer | 12/14/2002 | Idaho Oberver
Posted on 12/30/2002 9:21:34 AM PST by mgstarr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/814217/posts
The Missing 13th Amendment
The Commentator | 24DEC08 | Unknown
Posted on 12/24/2008 8:25:36 AM PST by Daddynoz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2153789/posts
Ok, let me wade in here.
This amendment would not ban lawyers in government, however it does make sense on keeping politicians and voters loyal by making them ineligible, for accepting titles or gifts from foreign sources.
However, instead of trying to argue that it was already passed, wouldn’t the route to pursue, would be to get 26 more states that hadn’t ratified it, to propose it in states legislatures, and ratify it? I mean, there’s not time limit on a proposed amendment, unless the amendment specifies that there be one.
