Time: Tue Mar 04 01:51:50 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA24855; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 20:05:34 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 22:24:03 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Missing 13th amendment <snip> > >The following address: "To my countrymen" was forwarded to me. It was >signed "Tom Read, an ordinary citizen". I presume that by ordinary, he >means that he has swollowed the party-line, sinker & all. > >The party-line is the one that teachers are taught by their professors who >learned from their predecessors who held certain myths to be self-evident. >Amongst those myths are the ones supported by the authors you quote, >below. You are accompanied by three lawyers, one law school librarian, >and a whole slew of academicians wearing egg cosmetic; none of whom have >done any original research, by admission. I include Bernstein and Agel >amongst the slew. Incidently, I purchased their book; and, have used it >as an example of how cults work to corrupt governments. > >In his declarations to Congress while seeking assent to the War of 1812, >Madison gave one of his reasons as the fact that the Government had been >infiltrated by secret foreign agents with the intent to overthrow >constitutional government. The titles of nobility amendment was an >enforcing provision to an otherwise empty provision of the Constitution. >At the same time as its ratification, Nicholas Biddle, President of the >Bank of the United States informed President Monroe that the Directors of >the Bank had lent all of the money to themselves; and, as a result, there >would be no money from them to run the government. > >Now, I have copies of the original correspondence. There is also a copy >from the Journal of the Secretary of State's correspondence that says "It >is the opinion of the Executive that under the 13th amendment to the >constitution by the acceptance of such an appointment from any foreign >Government, a citizen of the United States ceases to enjoy that character, >and becomes incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the >United States, or either of them." It is initialed -J.Q.A. [John Quincy >Adams]. > >There is far more to this matter than I have time to record in this >sitting. We welcome honest and intelligent inquiry but do not have the >time to research, keeps beans on the table, and address the fantasies of >those who would leap into battle with dummy amunition. > >Yours, &c. > >David Dodge > >> > The myth of the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment: >> > 'There is a missing "Thirteenth Amendment" that was duly ratified >> >and published in many state records, and this Amendment bars lawyers from >> >serving in government.' Hogwash! >> > I suggest to all of you who feel compelled to buy into this swill >> >to go out and buy an excellent authority on the Amendments entitled >> >"Amending America", by Jerome Agel and Richard B. Bernstein, 1993, ISBN >> >0-8129-2038-4 (First Edition). On pages 177 and 178, this book discusses >> >"The Orphans Of The Amending Process". One of the "Orphans" is the >> >anti-nobility provision complained about by those who would whine to us >> >rather than empower themselves. Of this particular anomoly in our >> >history, this book offers a well presented account, and I repeat it here >> >(footnotes deleted). >> > >> > "The 1810 proposal would have supplemented Article I, section 9, >> >clause 8 of the Constitution, which provides: >> > >> > No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And >> >no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, >> >without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, >> >Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign >> >State. >> > >> > [Check it out folks, the anti-nobility issue never existed! It's >> >always been 'unconstitutional'] Although the people were committed of >> >republicanism and the rejection of European ideas of aristocracy and >> >nobility, nervous lawmakers believed that ideas of nobility exercised a >> >pernicious, seductive power. In 1788, the ratifying conventions of four >> >states demanded amendments either forbidding Congress from granting >> >consent to a citizen's acceptance of a title of nobility or striking the >> >phrase 'without the Consent of the Congress.' Attempts to revive these >> >proposals during the First Congress's discussion of the Bill of Rights >> >failed to gather any support. >> > But, on May 1, 1810, Congress proposed an amendment strenghing >> >the ban on titles of nobility, with only five Senators and three >> >Representatives voting against the proposal: >> > >> > 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 origins of this proposal are a minor mystery of American >> >constitutional history. Neither the record of debates in Congress nor >> >the major newspapers of the period cast any light on its purposes or the >> >motives of its supporters. Historians have suggested two possible >> >explanations: >> > First, apprehension was widespread, especially in >> >Federalist-dominated New England, that the French empire of Napoleon I >> >might exert a dangerously corrupting influence on American life. Jerome >> >Bonaparte, a brother of Napoleon, had come to the United States and >> >conducted a liason with a Baltimore prostitute named Betsy Patterson [my >> >how some things never change], whom he made pregnant. Federalists, >> >seizing on the scandal of the Bonaparte-Patterson relationship, charged >> >that Bonaparte would attempt to secure the election of his illegitimate >> >son to the Presidency. Although Federalists in Congress offered the >> >amendment to embarrass Republican President James Madison, the >> >Republicans endorsed it, declaring 'It can do no harm.' Second, the >> >amendment was another manifestation of American nativism and resentment >> >against foreigners and foreign countries -- feelings that achieved >> >special virulence during the Napoleonic Wars in Europe and just before >> >the War of 1812. >> > Whether a political maneuver or a powerful expression of nativist >> >prejudice, the amendment fell only one state short of ratification. >> >Ironically, in a mirror-image of the problems plaguing the Eleventh >> >Amendment (which was adopted in fact three years before it was declared >> >adopted in law), Congress and the American people erroneously assumed >> >that the 'titles' amendment had been ratified. The manual prepared for >> >the Fifteenth Congress (1817-1819) listed it as part of the Constitution. >> > Confusion over the listing sparked a congressional investigation, which >> >confirmed that the upper house of South Carolina's legislature had >> >rejected the proposal as unnecessary. Even so, in some >> >nineteenth-century histories of the United States and editions of the >> >Constitution, this 'Article XII' appeared as a valid part of the >> >Constitution." >> > >> > Lawyers in America are no better a lot than their counterparts in >> >Europe. The great difference lies in the difference between our forms of >> >government -- not issues of nobility. In America, the Constitution >> >recognizes no manner of nobility, except that all powers of government >> >originate from within We the People. I hope somebody just read that. >> >It's WE THE PEOPLE who are the nobles -- if nobles there were. >> > Lawyers like to think of themselves as special folks, even as >> >having a special kind of 'nobility'. After all, just look at how much we >> >stupid people pay the bastards!! THEY put that stupid "Esq." after their >> >name (many don't do that by the way -- my friends don't). Any one of you >> >who call yourselves patriots can do the same thing. There's no law >> >against it. Shucks, some of you guys claim to be GOD, what's a little >> >Esq. compared to GOD? I hope the message is getting through that it >> >doesn't matter what they may think of themselves, under this Constitution >> >it only matters what we think of them. >> > Laugh at them! Ignore them. They put their pants on >> >one-leg-at-a-time under our Constitution, just like you or me. But, you >> >who make an issue out of them are GIVING them a nobility they don't have. >> > YOU are the enemy of our Constitution -- not the buffoons whom you pay >> >the big-bucks to tell you that you have no rights. >> > The sooner we all get down to the serious business of holding all >> >those using official, or quasi-official, power to subvert our >> >Constitution accountable to it, the sooner we'll all begin to enjoy the >> >liberty it promises to each of us. >> > That brings me to the last point. PLEASE READ Sec. 3 and Sec. >> >4 of the Fourteenth Amendment. All you 'common-law' pundits have a real >> >big stick there, and all the gnashing of teeth over whether an American >> >Flag has gold fringe or not, or what you think our Amendments may or may >> >not be, doesn't matter. Did any of you -- even the most vociferous of >> >you -- hear that? IT DOESN'T MATTER!! >> > The Constitution we have is the one you find in your kid's >> >history book, and its pretty damned good. Quit your bitchin, and get to >> >work using it. You don't need anything else. If nothing else, quit >> >trying to poison my friends with your impotence. You may not feel >> >empowered to enforce its provisions, but some of us are gathering who do. >> > I'm finished now, but I'm sending a copy of this to Linda T. If >> >I've got it wrong somewhere, I have confidence she'll put me in my place. >> > Regards, >> > >> > Tom Read, an ordinary citizen. ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail