Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Lost" Thirteenth Amendment
Bank Index ^

Posted on 08/18/2002 5:32:42 AM PDT by Suzie_Cue

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

If the terrorists hate us for our freedoms….
The simple solution is to take our freedoms away

1 posted on 08/18/2002 5:32:42 AM PDT by Suzie_Cue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Suzie_Cue
Virginia, therefore, counted as the required 13th state to make the 13th Amendment a LEGITIMATE addition to the Constitution. Since it has not been repealed, it is still the law today

A minor point: It's not in the Constitution.

2 posted on 08/18/2002 5:39:28 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Another minor point : the State of Ohio didn't ratify the income tax admendment when the rest of the ratifying states did, but RETROACTIVELY more than 40 years later.

Another minor point : Even if/when any person can prove the process was not followed correctly, the lawyers in government (including judges) simply rule that it was intended. If someone proved beyond doubt that the income tax of today is unconstitutional and illegal, I have no doubt that the courts would nonetheless order its enforcement "because of national security". This applies as well to any that would cause loss of bereaucratic authority . Those that gain power NEVER willingly give it up.

3 posted on 08/18/2002 5:56:17 AM PDT by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
Those that gain power NEVER willingly give it up.

Then it must be TAKEN from them.

4 posted on 08/18/2002 6:35:20 AM PDT by Pern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Suzie_Cue
It is kinda strange that Slavery (XIII) falls between the XII and XIV that covers electors and qualifications.....
5 posted on 08/18/2002 6:49:21 AM PDT by JohnPaulJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Conspiracy
Index Bump
6 posted on 08/18/2002 7:05:34 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Suzie_Cue
You forgot a tinfoil hat warning. This is pure drivel.
7 posted on 08/18/2002 7:08:55 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne; dighton; Orual; aculeus
They're cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs...


8 posted on 08/18/2002 7:10:52 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: general_re; Cultural Jihad; Kevin Curry
This is part of the 'Constitutionalist' drivel that fringe freeper Matthews believed in, leading him to blow away the cop in Massillon, Ohio a week ago. His paranoid ravings accepted this nonsense about the '13th Amendment' and took it to it's logical conclusion: Since all legislatures and Congresses since this time included lawyers, the laws they passed were unconstitutional! He then said that since these laws, including traffic laws were illegal, he had a right to resist them with murderous violence.

It looks like JimRob will have some real cleaning up to do around here after he gets back from the Friva!
9 posted on 08/18/2002 7:21:49 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
>This is pure drivel.

Prove it. Please disprove the premise of the post.

I Corps

10 posted on 08/18/2002 7:22:19 AM PDT by I Corps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: I Corps
Prove it. Please disprove the premise of the post.

There is no reason to argue with psychos who believe this stuff, they are all going to the same part of hell that Matthews is in.

11 posted on 08/18/2002 7:27:57 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: I Corps
I will humor you for a minute or two.

Why have some people thought the 13th Amendment is about attorneys?

The has been some debate in the past as to the usage of the term "Esquire", still used by many attorneys today. Originally, there was no Bar Association in the United States, and those attorneys who were members of a Bar Association at all belonged to the Bar Association in Great Britain. If "Esquire" was considered to be a "title of nobility" as prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, then these people would be in violation of American law, and under the 13th Amendment, would lose their citizenship. We have since found that many of the participants in the ratification of the 13th Amendment used the term "Esquire" themselves, and sometimes right in the official correspondence pertaining to the ratification of the 13th Amendment itself. Therefore, if that particular affectation was thought by some to come under the prohibitions against titles of nobility, then it certainly wasn't seen that way by the gentlemen who wrote, supported, and actually ratified the amendment themselves.

12 posted on 08/18/2002 7:29:08 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: general_re; AppyPappy; Orual; aculeus; BlueLancer; one_particular_harbour; hellinahandcart; ...

13 posted on 08/18/2002 7:32:57 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
I will humor you for a minute or two.

I am humoring you by talking about an Amendment that does not even exist. Hmm, what does that say about me? Me thinks I should stick to trying to disabuse people about real problems in government.

14 posted on 08/18/2002 7:33:07 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
It looks like JimRob will have some real cleaning up to do around here after he gets back from the Friva!

My, are we going to CENSOR what we don't agree with??

I just love Amerikans like you who believe in Free Speech and Discussion.

Does the 1st read "You have the right of free speech just as long as you are not dumb enough to use it"??

CATO

15 posted on 08/18/2002 7:39:51 AM PDT by Cato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
"Esquire" and "Sir" are not titles of nobility. They are references to peerage, a step below nobility. If memory serves, "Baron" is the lowest of the noble ranks.
16 posted on 08/18/2002 7:41:37 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cato
My, are we going to CENSOR what we don't agree with??

Sorry, if Free Republic gets to be known as a site that endorses cop-killing, I can't afford to be a member. Timothy McVeigh fans are hazardous to a Websites health!

17 posted on 08/18/2002 7:42:52 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
I am glad Ronald Reagan never won "Best Actor". It's every bit as much of a "title of honor or nobility" as "Esquire".

Someone needs to tell these people the difference between a title and an affectation.

18 posted on 08/18/2002 7:43:29 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: I Corps; All
Prove it.

I'm not a lawyer, but in my casual reading of the article:

In fact, the 13th Amendment makes it very clear that any person within the ranks of government holding public office, found to have a title of nobility or to be accepting 'honors' must lose his position and FORFEIT HIS CITIZENSHIP to the United States

it seems the intent was to prevent lawyers and others in power in government from being influenced by favors from leaders in other governments, particularly England.

If I recall my history correctly:

Maryland 12- 25-1810
Ohio 1-31-1811
Kentucky 1-31-1811
Pennsylvania 2-6-1811
Delaware 2-2-1811
New Jersey 2-13-1811
Vermont 10-24-1811
Tennessee 11-21-1811
Georgia 12-13-1811
North Carolina 12-23-1811
Massachusetts 2-27-1812
New Hampshire 12-10-1812

We were at war with England at this time (1812), and emotions were running high. I'm reading the John Adams book, and I know that jealousies and animosities ran high against the US long after we set down our arms against the Brits.

My reading of the situation is that some in government for some reason felt that anyone accepting priveliges from a foreign concern needed to be treated as a traitor.

Isn't that what we all said about Clinton, and his dealings with the Chinese and James Riady?

19 posted on 08/18/2002 7:43:55 AM PDT by IncPen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
I am glad Ronald Reagan never won "Best Actor". It's every bit as much of a "title of honor or nobility" as "Esquire".

He won a Golden Globe Award for Hollywood Citizenship in 1957. I *knew* he was a Globalist/Trilat/Mason/Bilderberger all along.

;-)

20 posted on 08/18/2002 8:04:39 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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