The Missing 13th Amendment

The Commentator ^ | 24DEC08 | Unknown

[Daddynoz]

TITLES OF NOBILITY” AND “HONOR”

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Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today.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.

The story of this “missing” Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment’s meaning and consequent current relevance.

MEANING of the 13th Amendment

The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

“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.” [Emphasis added.}

At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the “title of nobility” Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to “nobility”, “honour”, “emperor”, “king”, and “prince” lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

Not so.

Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited “titles of nobility” several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though “titles of nobility” were already prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.

SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL

To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th “titles of nobility” Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power.

Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as “Esquires” and received the “honor” of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This twotiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans’ political interests, the nation’s economic welfare, and the Constitution’s egalitarian spirit.

The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system.

[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."

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

[A. Patriot]

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?

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

[Kolokotronis]

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

I think you are right.

[Daddynoz]

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

[Salamander]

What do Salukis do, that they need lawyers?

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

[Admin Moderator]

Please, stop spamming the threads. Thank you.

[metesky]

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

[mondonico]

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.

[mondonico]

‘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.”

[Impy]

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.

[SunkenCiv]

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