| | Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment
| Emperor Kenton
User ID: 254657
6/20/2007 1:02 PM
Report abusive post | Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment
| Quote |
Giuliani, knighted by the Queen, should be the first to be denied any office in violation of the 13th Amendment.
Appointed Knight Grand Cross
The Most Honourable Order of the Bath
by H.M.Queen Elizabeth:
George Bush Sr.; Ronald Reagan; Norman Schwarzkopf; Colin Powell; Caspar Weinberger; John Paul Getty II; Admiral Leighton W Smith Jr.; Rudolph Giuliani
The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States "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." |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 168759
6/20/2007 1:05 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 105508
6/20/2007 1:09 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
But that isn't part of the constitution. The 13th amendment abolishes slavery. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 105508
6/20/2007 1:11 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
But that isn't part of the constitution. The 13th amendment abolishes slavery. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 234305
6/20/2007 1:12 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
Giuliani, knighted by the Queen, should be the first to be denied any office in violation of the 13th Amendment.
of them." Quoting: Emperor Kenton 254657
Has anyone ever told you that you're a TOTAL idiot?
They SHOULD have!
- |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 254738
6/20/2007 1:16 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
Giuliani, knighted by the Queen, should be the first to be denied any office in violation of the 13th Amendment.
of them."
Has anyone ever told you that you're a TOTAL idiot?
They SHOULD have!
- Quoting: Anonymous Coward 234305
The whole government is in violation of the original 13th and anyone who's a BAR member.
Whether or not women can constitutionally be elected is another question. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 103336
6/20/2007 1:18 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
But that would mean that Powell couldn't be elected either. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 249727
6/20/2007 1:19 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
The 13th Amendment, the Titles of Nobility Amendment was a published part of the US Constitution even up to the 1876 when Colorado had become a State. Then without any fan far it was simply disappeared, and it seems the media did not even notice. BUT many of the public at the notice of the disappearance began to question what had happened to it. Even as late as the 1930's it was still being debated what had been its fate and why there had been no public media notice or Congressional notice, not State notice that it had been simply disappeared.
If you think this Congress, Executive Branch, and Supreme Court are corrupt, at least these current ones have not so far simply vanished what had been a published Amendment to the US Constitution.
Some say the question of the 13th Titles of Nobility Amendment's fate it "merely academic". It seems to me it is much more than just academic is it indicitive of the fraud committee against the people of the USA, by the Congress just before the Civil War, and the Congress during it and after it.
None the less, even without it, the Consitution itself bans people receiving Titles of Foriegn Nobility without the consent of Congress. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 254778
6/20/2007 1:26 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
Also because he's a shmuck characature of a shape-shifting
disease wannabe. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 135366
6/20/2007 1:53 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
The 13th Amendment, the Titles of Nobility Amendment was a published part of the US Constitution even up to the 1876 when Colorado had become a State. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 249727
Show us a copy of that please...
As it sat, the amendment was put out to the states in 1810...12 ratified, and 3 rejected by 1814...
The 'issue' was with Virginia who in the only recorded vote:
"Between February 2, 1811, and February 14, 1811, Virginia's two legislative houses (General Assembly) considered the Titles of Nobility amendment. Senate and House of Delegates' journal entries record that on February 14, 1811, the following took place in Virginia's Senate:
"on the question being put thereupon, the said resolution was disagreed to by the House.".
That means they rejected it...
If you have any other official records from the Commonwealth of Virginia showing where the subject was ever brought up again, I am sure they would be worth scads of cash... |
| Emperor Kenton
User ID: 254657 (OP)
6/20/2007 2:37 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
"In a Republic, Luxury and Corruption of Morals are said to be the invariable precursors of national dissolution," said Samuel F. Jarvis, in an address to the members of Phi Beta Kappa in 1806. "It is no less true that the perversion of national taste, and the disrelish for the solid attainments of science evince a degeneracy in Learning, Morals and Religion."
Four years after Mr. Jarvis made that speech, on the Thirtieth anniversary of the founding of Phi Beta Kappa, the State Legislature of Maryland was preparing to take an extraordinary step. Meeting on Christmas Day in 1810, this body ratified the original Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting Titles of Nobility and Honour and describing a Draconian penalty for its violation:
"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."
"The cause of learning is intimately connected to the cause of virtue," said Jarvis to the members of Phi Beta Kappa. Published by Oliver Steele & Company of New Haven, Jarvis' Oration is rather typical of the "federalist" thinking of the men of New Haven in this era, including both scholars and sailors who were prospering under the new Constitution. Seventeen states were now represented in Congress, and the frontier was at the border of the Indiana Territory and Ohio, which had been admitted to the union in 1803.
So, too, the town green and the New England town meeting were being replicated widely in Ohio, as was the principle of `republicanism'. Plain and simple manners, Bible-based education, and state governments drastically limited by local control and a profound concern for property rights, are the hallmarks of these frontier republicans."
That philosophy was carried forward into Ohio and Indiana by land-hungry pioneers and by itinerant preachers schooled at Yale, and Brown and Princeton -- and intent on setting up public education based on the common principles of Christian morality.
"Yet it is in America now that the clearest hope for a beginning of the [comprehensive] World Brain resides. A country habituated to the rapid development of vast commercial and industrial enterprises must surely be capable of attempting an intellectual and educational enterprise beyond the imagination of men bred in smaller and more tradition-ridden communities. So far it has been impossible to awaken any influential and resourceful people" wrote H.G. Wells, in 1939, about what he considered an "unprecedented necessity."
Wells is remembered now as the great science-fiction novelist, and his role as a proponent of world socialism -- and a tireless critic of the British ruling class and its Imperial ambitions -- is only revealed in little-known books like "The Fate of Man," as quoted above. In a bit of sublime irony, the establishment of the World Wide Web comes as close to Wells' vision of a World Brain as could ever possibly be, as a part of the neural network between colleges and universities known as the Internet.
Fifty years after his call for construction of something like a World Brain, for the purpose of implementing socialism through pure democracy, the Internet and the Web are accelerating the decline of socialism and a concomitant rise in libertarian republicanism. That is, the whole network of advanced telecommunications -- programmable fax machines, cellular radio telephones, high speed computers with modems, and their long-line and satellite links that make it all work -- have combined to enable the common man or woman to have access to any great library and to send high-speed telegraph messages (e-mail) almost anywhere for just pennies! And, it is making state and local government both transparent and more accessible, to the citizen who is computer literate.
Furthermore, just as these United States in Congress assembled are entering the most crucial and dangerous period in our long history, this network and its resources have made it possible for the average citizen, who is willing to study the issues, to be part of representative self-government, in a way that Thomas Jefferson or George Mason would have approved. And, the surfacing of this missing Amendment, passed out of Congress in 1810 and properly ratified in 1819, is part of what the New England Federalists (referring to their political faction, now, and not just the philosophy), would have easily recognized as Divine Providence. How this Amendment was ratified, what it meant to the men of that era, and how it came to be suppressed and forgotten are the subjects of this essay.
And, what the loss of this Amendment has caused, and what its lawful restoration and placement in the proper order of Amendments means for the society of the United States, in the 1990s, in also addressed.
The reader may begin with Chapter 1 -The Prohibition of Titles of Nobility and Honour. Chapter 2 is Ratification: 1812-1820. Chapter 3 is Philadelphia Lawyers and a Mock Nobility, while Chapter 4 is Panic, War & Opium. Chapter 5 is entitled One Hundred Years of Pain, and the essay concludes with Chapter 6 - The Secret Armies and a Table of Ratification and Publications. In Addition is the Addenda on the Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett vs. Turner on the flawed nature of the ratification of the Thirteenth Anti-Slavery and the Fourteenth Citizenship Amendments.
Among those great thinkers consulted for the steel framework of this essay are: H.G. Wells on the Left, Albert Jay Nock on the Right, and Buckminster Fuller as the centrist.
Whenever possible, quotations are used, taken directly from people who were living the history discussed here. Key comments will often be set off in a separate block of text or highlighted in color. Special links to other sources of information on the World Wide Web will be noted.
End of Introduction
Continue
The Prohibition of Titles of Nobility and Honour
[link to freedomdomain.com] |
| Emperor Kenton
User ID: 254657 (OP)
6/20/2007 2:59 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
State & Publications
Colorado
1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868
Connecticut
1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
Dakota
1862, 1863, 1867
Florida
1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia
1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois
1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana
1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa
1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas
1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Kentucky
1822
Louisiana
1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine
1825, 1831
Massachusetts
1823
Michigan
1827, 1833
Mississippi
1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri
1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*
Nebraska
1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina
1819, 1828
Northwestern Territories
1833
Ohio
1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania
1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island
1822
Virginia
1819
Wyoming
1869, 1876 |
| SnakeAirlines
User ID: 135366
6/20/2007 5:11 PM
 | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
Gee...Thanks...
Just because someone may have mistakenly included the amendment as written in a book, does not mean it was 'ratified' by the required 13 'states'...
Why didn't the US ever accept (or publish) that there were 13 states to ratify the amendment?
Virginia is the only state 'issue', and by the records of their own 'Houses' (Upper & Lower) they never ratified the amendment...
BTW...I don't give a rat's ass if Rudy runs or not...The issue is this stupid subject that continually comes up and no one is willing to 'prove'...
I have come here to chew bubblegum, and kick ass... |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 135366
6/20/2007 5:14 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
Oh yeah...
I especially love the dates on your list that are after the real 13th was ratified in 1865...
You'd think that the states on your list might have had a clue when the US government sent them something els called the "13th Amendment" to vote on, eh?
 |
| The Dean
User ID: 254878
6/20/2007 6:20 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
"from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States,"
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
......................................
I don't think you can lose your U. S. citizenship other than for insurrection or rebellion against the United States. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 246915
6/20/2007 8:18 PM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
SEARCH WELL YOUNG LAWYERS, FOR BY FINDING A WAY TO REINSTATE THE 13TH AMENDMENT, YOU CAN ELIMINATE 90% OF THE PRESENT LAWYER INFESTED GOVERNMENT. |
| Emperor Kenton
User ID: 255028
6/21/2007 6:28 AM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
On March 12, 1819 the State of Virginia, with the enactment and publication of the laws of Virginia, became the 13th and FINAL state required to ratify the above article of amendment to the Constitution For The United States, thus making it the Law Of The Land. With the enactment of Act No. 280, March 12, 1819, which was Voted, En Bloc, and publication of the Revised Code, the State of Virginia notified the Department of State, the Congress, the Library of Congress, and the President of their action by issuing to each a copy of the Laws of Virginia.
Research Articles For In-Depth Study
[link to www.amendment-13.org] |
| Emperor Kenton
User ID: 255028
6/21/2007 6:32 AM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
The missing 13th Amendment by David Dodge.
* The real Title of Nobility Amendment FAQ by Jol Silversmith
* Re: 13th amendment by Richard C. Green
Sir:
Having just reviewed some of the arguments against the validity of the original Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I am compelled to respond immediately and with some alacrity.
Just recently, this issue was brought to my attention, in the course of doing research on campaign finance laws and the legal status of foreign corporations and foreign-born contributors. What I did was to go first to the federal repository library at Yale, where I was able to verify the exact wording of the Amendment, and that it was issued by the Eleventh Congress in the Second Session. Everyone agrees on the 1810 date of issuance and the precise wording.
Then, I went to the "Laws of the United States of America, from the 4th of March, 1789 to the 4th of March, 1815 ..." as published by Bioren and Duane of Philadelphia. In Volume One, on page 74, the Title of Nobility Amendment is given as Article 13. The wording is exact and correct, and Yale University has an edition in their Law Library and one in the Rare Book Library. The funding for this edition of our laws was approved on February 16, 1815. The Bioren and Duane was authorized by an Act of Congress. That means that -- as of the conclusion of Congressional business on March 4th, 1815, the Thirteenth Amendment was considered valid and ratified -- and the premiere printers of Philadelphia were retained to print a summary of all U.S. laws and the Constitution.
The argument that the Secretary of State had some extraordinary jurisdiction over the ratification process fails the test of reason: the law passed April 20, 1818 [Chapter LXXX, Section 2] requires the Secretary of State "to cause" to make known the results of any and all polls taken. The section reads, in part "it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State" to publish any amendment which has been adopted, "with his certificate specifying the states by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid [as a part] of the Constitution of the United States."
A law passed in 1818 cannot negatively affect an Amendment issued by Congress in 1810, and the wording of this law (updated in 1820, after Virginia's ratification) does not alter or impair the rights of the states in any way. It puts an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide information to the public, to issue an official certificate of ratification, and nothing more!
There is no indication that President Monroe polled Louisiana, Mississippi or Indiana regarding this Amendment. They were not present in Congress to vote on the Amendment in 1810, and they had no jurisdiction over it at any later time, except to provide pro forma approval. Louisiana published the Amendment as valid in 1822.
The National Archives have finally acknowledged [1994] that the 1819 ratification of this Amendment by Virginia was correct and proper. Nothing in Article V requires Virginia to send the federal government a letter or a certificate of any kind, and if the Secretary of State failed to publish such a certificate of ratification according to the 1818 law, that is not the failure of Virginia or its people. The slight modification of this law in 1820 likewise does not impair Virginia's prior approval of this article.
The assertion is made that Connecticut rejected this Amendment, but I have been unable to determine where that information comes from: as of April 22, 1813 no definitive action was taken. Meanwhile, four times in the years from 1821 to 1839, the Amendment was published as part of the organic laws of Connecticut. That is a considerable number of state editions to be issued by mistake, and consecutively. Both Missouri and Connecticut published this section as valid in the year of 1835.
"Nothing can be more unfortunate for the United States, than for those citizens who hold the power of leading fashion to grow by degrees into a mock nobility, employing their wealth and influence to try to refine laziness and make vice attractive, instead of feeling an interest in the welfare of their country." Those comments were written in July of 1821 by William S. Cardell, Esquire, of New York City.
He was the corresponding secretary of the American Academy of Languages and Belles-Lettres, and his essay circulated to all of the leading intellectuals of that era, including John Quincy Adams, and Daniel and Noah Webster. The tone of this essay, and its commentary on education for the general public, clearly indicate that the topic of "titles of nobility" was common to the intellectual currency of the day.
"If our patriots and philanthropists cannot succeed in an enlightened course of instruction, it will be eventually found ... necessary to check the depradations of felons." Virginia's ratification in 1819 had to be common knowledge, otherwise why would these leading thinkers be concerned with a proposition that had failed six or more years earlier? Among the leaders of this Academy was vice-president Joseph Story, who was also a justice of the Massachusetts court. Story was part and parcel of the legal establishment of the 1820s, he had to know that his state issued a version of the Constitution with the Amendment in place in 1823. Therefore, when in 1828 he published the "Public and General Statutes passed by Congress 1789-1827" and omitted any mention of the "Title of Nobility" section or the resolution of Congress in 1810, it was not an oversight but a deliberate, calculated effort to suppress a lawful portion of the Constitution. The publishing agents were Wells & Lilly of Boston, and every other aspect of the Congressional business done in 1810 agrees with other extant publications. Joseph Story is either the father or great uncle of the decades-long struggle to eliminate this Amendment, and it is up to the apologists for this conspiracy to explain his motives. As a member of the Academy mentioned previously, as a state supreme court judge, he was as well-informed as any man of that era could be. Why did he conspire to suppress the "Title of Nobility" section, the original Thirteenth Amendment?
Richard C. Green
Added August 5, 1997
Many pages of the Revised Code of Virginia, as published in 1819 and showing the original Thirteenth Amendment as ratified and the valid Article 13, are now available on the World Wide Web. This is from page thirty of the original manuscript, an additional copy of which was recently discovered in the University of California at Santa Cruz law library.
[link to www.let.rug.nl] |
| Torque
User ID: 255093
6/21/2007 6:48 AM | | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
Nobody ever reads the Constitution or the Admendments...for if they did, they would clearly see written in those documents that only land owners are to vote. Imagine the ruckus that would stir up? |
| SnakeAirlines
User ID: 135366
6/21/2007 6:57 AM
| | Re: Giuliani cannot be elected, violation of 13th Amendment | Quote |
On March 12, 1819 the State of Virginia, with the enactment and publication of the laws of Virginia, became the 13th and FINAL state required to ratify the above article of amendment to the Constitution For The United States, thus making it the Law Of The Land. With the enactment of Act No. 280, March 12, 1819, which was Voted, En Bloc, and publication of the Revised Code, the State of Virginia notified the Department of State, the Congress, the Library of Congress, and the President of their action by issuing to each a copy of the Laws of Virginia.
Research Articles For In-Depth Study
[ link to www.amendment-13.org] Quoting: Emperor Kenton 255028
Except for that little matter of the fact that it was never voted on in the 'House' (which in the commonwealth of VA means both Upper and Lower houses, ie. Senate and Reps)...
The records (Journal) of the Houses are very detailed and complete...There was never any action in either house after February 14th, 1811...
If anyone can show me the Journal entry that shows that the act was brought up again before 1819, that it was read into the record 3 times and then that it was 'approved', I will gladly admit that the act did indeed become the correct 13th...
Till then, it is all speculation why anyone ever published the act as an amendment...
I especially like the part from the last post where the author cites (without footnotes) a Bioren & Duane publication and then concludes:
The Bioren and Duane was authorized by an Act of Congress. That means that -- as of the conclusion of Congressional business on March 4th, 1815, the Thirteenth Amendment was considered valid and ratified
And then goes on to argue that the ratification was in 1819 when VA 'published' the same text that can easily be argued came from the earlier B&D work...
As I have stated...Erroneously publishing something as true, does not make it so...
The act was never brought up in the Houses of VA after 1811...
If you can show that it was, then by all means do so...
I have come here to chew bubblegum, and kick ass... |
| |
|
