Time: Sun Apr 20 05:51:01 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA22214
for [address in tool bar]; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 05:20:40 -0700 (MST)
Delivered-To: liberty-and-justice-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 05:41:29 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: L&J: SLS: original 13th Amendment
References: <970420013204_-1301201104@emout14.mail.aol.com>
In 1819, Virginia put it over the top.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 12:11 AM 4/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
>A couple of questions:
>
>Why does anyone suggest that "Esquire"
>is a title of nobility? According to
>Bouvier's it is a title of respect
>just above gentlemen.
>
>When was this suppose to be ratified.
>Again, according to Bouvier's, as of
>1856 it had not been ratified.
>
>Jim Bullock
>
>
>StCool@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> The original 13th amendment did place a specific ban against titles of
>> nobility, and defined a penalty for those who accepted such titles.
>> That
>> penalty was a loss of citizenship and a loss of eligibility for
>> public office.
>>
>> However, there remains a scholarly debate pertaining to whether the
>> amendment was ratified by the required three-fourths. The amendment was
>> proposed during a period of time when States were forming in rapid
>> succession. The Constitution requires a three-fourths majority of the
States
>> for an amendment to be made part of the Constitution.
>>
>> The dilemma, in a nut-shell,.... would the three-fourths majority be
based on
>> the number of States that were present at the time of proposal, or would
>> newly formed States that emerged after the time of proposal and the before
>> the needed three-fourths majority was reached increase the total needed for
>> ratification?
>>
>> Apparently, a three-fourths was met if one just counted the number of
States
>> that were present at the time of proposal, but never a three-fourths
majority
>> if the total number of States were counted. Adding to the controversy
is the
>> question "Does a proposed amendment passed by Congress and submitted to the
>> states for ratification have a sunset clause if one isn't present in the
>> amendment. Such a clause would be,.... "This Amendment must be
ratified by
>> three-fourths of the States within 7 years of the date approved by
Congress."
>> Apparently, the original 13th amendment didn't have such a condition
and the
>> Constitution doesn't specify the time the States have to decide on an
>> amendment. Hmmmmm....apparently the founding fathers missed something
when
>> they drafted the Constitution.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>> "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>> Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>
========================================================================
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
========================================================================
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail