Posted on 10/09/2024 5:20:05 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
What color is the fringe on your flag?
Why does that seem so familiar?
I think there is a lot of good stuff in this overly long article. I found the historical research to be interesting. The diatribe against banking strikes me as an unnecessary and somewhat kookie distraction. The same probably applies to the attack on lawyers.
One can find quotes to the effect that banks rule the world, or lawyers rule the world, or fill-in-the-blank rule the world. Just because someone said so in the past does not make it true.
If this 13th Amendment was passed, we should recognize that it was passed. Stop there until consensus if formed. It’s not a matter of “I like it; it was passed,” or “I don’t like it, it was not passed.”
“Stop there until consensus if formed.”
Should have read “Stop there until consensus is formed.”
Bump for later
I read the document (Yes, all of it.) initially hoping there was a way to classify all lawyers as illegal aliens. However, it seems to be a document of tortured logic. Equating lawyers with nobility, and then leaping from lawyers to bankers says to me the document is missing several pages substantiated reasoning. The Constitution does not require judges to be lawyers. The certification for admittance to the bar does not differ from obtaining a CPA certificate or a license to practice medicine.
I wonder if it has to do with the lawyer title of “Esquire”.
[Dodge] "On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams' letter.) Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial."
There is a Journal entry of February 14, 1811 that the State of Virginia rejected the TONA amendment.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433014921120&seq=89
Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Page 83
Thursday, February 14th, 1811
On motion,The House proceeded to consider the resolution-proposing the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, recommended by Congress, which provides, that if any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor; 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-which, on Monday, the 4th instant, was twice read and laid upon the table.
And on the question being put thereupon, the said resolution was disagreed to by the House.
- - - - - - - - -
"If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments."
That three-fourths of the States have ratified must be certified by the appropriate official of the Federal government. It cannot be certified by internet wizards.
Currently the certifying authority is the archivist of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). In 1811, the certifying authority was the Secretary of State, James Madison.
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.