Time: Sun Apr 20 23:40:42 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA23266;
Sat, 19 Apr 1997 22:41:34 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA17910;
Sat, 19 Apr 1997 22:41:26 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:39:39 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: original 13th Amendment
I am going to give David Dodge the last
word on the point raised here, but my
information tells me that Virginia's
ratification was pivotal, as evidenced
by all the states which subsequently
printed it as Amendment Thirteen
in a very large number of authorized
printings -- authorized by state legislatures!
The Colorado Records Custodian has one such
example, which can be requested for the
cost of certification and mailing (no, they
will NOT send it to you pro bono). This one
shows the anti-slavery amendment as #14,
and it was printed in 1867 -- a pivotal year
-- because the "other" 14th crashed into
the law books in 1868.
Quite a deal, in my opinion, particularly
when the implications are just this side
of massive, if not earth-shaking.
1867 was the last year America existed
without the scourge of federal citizenship
appearing to have constitutional authority.
Please help yourself. Colorado enjoys all the
attention this amendment is getting.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 01:32 AM 4/20/97 -0400, you 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>
>
>
========================================================================
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