Time: Sun Nov 24 05:14:33 1996
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: The Now Found (real) Thirteenth Amendment
Cc:
Bcc: Liberty Law
At 12:05 AM 11/24/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Outpost of Freedom
>Gary Hunt
>November 23, 1996
>
>The Now Found (real) Thirteenth Amendment
>
> Brian March and I have been corresponding, and he has been sharing
>his research on the Titles of Nobility Amendment to the Constitution for
>some time, now. During the past few years, Brian has been in touch with
>a number of Congressmen who have expressed an interest, at least in
>response to Brian's letter and conversations, to the subject. Brian's
>efforts, however, have seemed fruitless. It seems that the National
>Archives, the Library of Congress and other branches of government
>(manned by bar attorneys) have provided information to the contrary of
>what Brian has provided. Their arguments, however, are circular, and
>cannot stand scrutiny. Unfortunately, when they are presented out of
>context in the overall complexity of the matter, they seem to have
>substantiated government claims, when, in fact, they prove to the
>contrary.
> It seems that this 'befuddlement' provides an escape to those
>Congressmen who have, otherwise, expressed an interest in the subject.
>So, Brian has decided to break the subject down into its simplest
>elements, so that even a school child could understand what is proven by
>the historical record. In so doing, Brian has composed a letter defining
>the three principle areas of dispute, and isolated and discussed the
>first area -- what is the ratification process under Article V of the
>Constitution?
> The entire text of that letter, including addressees, is quoted
>below. The attachments are not included, however, I will be scanning
>them into .TIF format and will be happy to send (attached to e-mail)
>copies to anyone who requests them.
>***********************
> Brian H. March
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>November 6, 1996
>
>Senator Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
>328 Hart Senate Office Building
>Washington DC 20510
>
>Representative Bill Richardson (D-NM)
>2209 Rayburn House Office Building
>Washington, DC 20515-3103
>
>Senator Paul Simon (D-IL)
>462 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>Washington DC 20510
>
>Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX)
>2443 Rayburn House Office Building
>Washington, DC 20515-4321
>
>Re: Putting the record straight-the "Titles of Nobility" Amendment vs.
>The Representatives of the National Archives, Library of Congress and
>others.
>
>Gentlemen,
> Permit me to begin by thanking each of you for expressing your desire
>to help David M. Dodge, Thomas S. Dunn and me with the above referenced
>subject.
> As you know from our meeting(s), the "Titles of Nobility" Amendment
>(Article XIII of the Constitution) was introduced in the latter part of
>1809. After a few revisions, it was approved by both Houses of Congress
>and sent to the seventeen "several States" for ratification. The
>requisite number of States, at that time, would have been thirteen.
>Article XIII reads:
> "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 whatsoever, 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."
> You may also recall that this matter is very extensive in its scope.
>So much so that it has been very difficult to reason with certain
>officials in Washington, whose opinions on this subject, apparently, are
>more important and more significant than the historical documents; these
>same documents that they try to use to support their respective
>opinions. This historical record needs to be studied carefully to
>establish what truly is, and to separate opinions from fact.
> Even though the existence of Article XIII involves many issues, there
>is one that is of paramount importance - that should be addressed, and
>resolved, before we continue with the other issues. Article V of the
>Constitution for the United States of America provided a means to make
>change, as conditions necessitated. Article V reads, in part, "The
>Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
>shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, ... which... shall be
>valid, to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
>ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States..."
>The confusion comes over exactly what "when ratified by the Legislatures
>of three fourths of the several States..." means.
> As you can plainly see, there are two distinct requirements for the
>amendment portion of Article V. First is the requirement that two-thirds
>of Both houses of Congress 'propose' the amendment to the states for
>ratification (three-fourths needed). Presumably, there is s degree of
>familiarity with the issue of the proposed amendment, and it has been
>deemed worthy of submission to be considered as an amendment to the
>Constitution. This action being successfully completed, those states who
>are a party to this action are then requested to ratify, or not, the
>amendment. This process is singular in nature, and requires the two
>steps to be completed. Example: When a territory became a State (or
>states), it would have been impossible for the new state(s) to complete
>both criteria of the ratification process. As a result, the new state(s)
>would not have participated in the entire Article V process. Clearly, as
>you will see from the historical evidence below, this complete
>participation was absolutely necessary for inclusion in consideration of
>ratification.
> Let us suppose that three-fourths of the "several States" are needed
>to ratify, but only three-fourths of those states who were members at
>the time of obtaining the two-thirds vote to submit to the states. If
>this were true, we could conclude that there would be no consideration
>of input from any states which were not members of the Union at that
>point in time in which the first action were completed. If this is true,
>then only those seventeen states which were members would be considered
>with regard to ratification.
> Suppose that Article XIII was left open for question today. How many
>states would be required to ratify the Amendment? If Monroe, Adams and
>those other government and political experts of the day were to revisit
>the ratification today, would they have requested of all fifty states a
>report on the status of the ratification process? Would they seek to
>determine if thirty-three states had ratified the amendment? The answer,
>as you will clearly see, is, NO. Those thirty-three states that have
>entered the Union since 1810 would be ignored with regard to the
>ratification process. The historical record demonstrates that only
>thirteen of the then 17 "several States," when it was proposed, would be
>required for ratification.
> Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont,
>Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
>York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, South Carolina and Virginia were the
>only States in the Union at the time of the discussing, and the only
>States that participated in the "deem it necessary" phase of Article V,
>at the Second Session of the Eleventh Congress. Keep this in mind, and
>we will revisit this aspect later on.
> It is the opinion of Milton Gustafson, and Christopher Runkel, of the
>National Archives and Jack Maskell of the Library of Congress, along
>with a few others, that it requires a total of three-fourths of the
>states, when ratified. This is clear by their continued assertion that
>by 1819, when Virginia shows Article XIII as ratified, there were
>twenty-one states and that sixteen would be required for ratification.
>They extend this concept to today by claiming that, if this Amendment
>were still left open to question, 38 states would be required for
>ratification. Their conclusions, however, stand without historic proof
>or merit.
> In the Government Publication, "Annual Report of the American
>Historical Association for the year 1896 -- in Two Volumes, Vol. II.",
>is an essay titled "The Proposed Amendments To The Constitution Of The
>United States Of America During The First Century Of Its History", by
>Herman V. Ames, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, [entered into the
>record of the House of Representatives for the 54th Congress, 2d
>Session., HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES., Doc. No. 353, Part 2]. One of the
>amendments discussed by Ames was Article XIII. On page 329, Ames reports
>on the status of the ratification (1818) by twelve states, rejection by
>four, and that there is no record from Virginia. Ames, like Monroe,
>Adams and all the other political people of the time, concludes that
>only the original participants in the debates (seventeen States) were
>accountable to determine if there was a proper ratification or not. No
>mention is made of Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, or any other state
>that joined the Union after 1810. Different government officials today
>use Ames for their various arguments against this amendment. These same
>officials refuse to acknowledge that Ames is in agreement with our
>position that this Amendment only needed thirteen of the original
>seventeen states to ratify (ie. three-fourths, when proposed).
> Our research of the historical records paints a different picture. It
>is the very documents that the National Archives has provided us that
>bring light to this subject, and provide overwhelming evidence that
>three-fourths means when proposed.
> Let's look at the records we found at the National Archives. Exhibit 1
>is a Resolve from the House of Representatives, dated December 31st,
>1817, to President Monroe, making an inquiry into the number of States
>who had ratified Article XIII. As of this date, there were 20 States in
>the Union.
> Exhibit 2 is a Circular from the journal of John Quincy Adams,
>Secretary of State, dated January 7, [1818] to the Governors of the
>three States they had not received information from. There is no other
>circular to be found that mentions the recently added States of
>Louisiana, Indiana and Mississippi, requesting information regarding any
>consideration of Article XIII.
> Exhibit 3 is a letter from President Monroe, dated February 6, 1818,
>to the House of Representatives.
> Exhibit 4 is a letter from President Monroe, dated February 4, 1818,
>to the House of Representatives, stating, in part, "I transmit to the
>house a detailed report from the secretary of state, which contains all
>the information that has been received upon that subject." Surely,
>President Monroe knew more than the current staff of the National
>Archives and the Library of Congress as to whether Louisiana, Indiana or
>Mississippi should be considered with regard to the ratification of this
>Amendment. Apparently, he felt that there was no need to contact these
>three States with regard to any action they may have taken.
>Additionally, any action they may have taken would not be worthy of
>consideration by himself or the House of Representatives.
> Exhibit 5 (a & b) is a two page report from the Secretary of State,
>John Quincy Adams, dated February 3rd, [1818], to the House of
>Representatives. In this report, Adams stated that 12 States had
>ratified Article XIII, three States had rejected it, and he had no
>information from South Carolina and Virginia. Adams was only concerned
>with the seventeen "several States" who had participated in the initial
>process under Article V of the Constitution. He does not report with
>regard to Louisiana, Indiana or Mississippi, and, obviously, does not
>consider them a part of the process. Equally, he would surely be aware
>that they were, by the date of his report, members of the Union.
> From 1818 through 1820, our research of the legislative records,
>Governor's correspondence, and the Secretary of United States journals,
>has not been able to turn up any evidence of a complaint being lodged by
>the legislators/governors of the 17 States who had participated, nor by
>any of the three states representatives who were not included in the
>ratification process. No Representatives or Senators from any of the
>twenty States, then members, complained or made issue with the report of
>John Quincy Adams, nor the President's position in the matter. Nor have
>we been able to turn up any evidence of complaints in any of the States
>(all twenty) archives. The only objections seem to come from those on
>staff at the Archives and the Library, today.
> Exhibit 6 is a letter from President Monroe, dated February 27, 1818,
>to the House of Representatives concerning the action that South
>Carolina took upon this Amendment. It appears that South Carolina failed
>to ratify.
> Exhibit 7 is a letter from John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State,
>dated March 21 [1818], to Charles Buck, states, in part, "Upon a return
>from the Executive of Virginia, for which application has been made by
>this Dept. it will be known with precision what is the fate of the
>proposed amendment, and no time will be lost in communicating it to
>you."
> By this letter, it is clear that if Virginia had/has done nothing up
>to the present day, this amendment's fate would still rest, solely, with
>Virginia. This letter, makes it clear that only the seventeen States
>were considered participants in the ratification process. This left only
>Virginia to determine the fate of the Amendment.
> Clearly, the above is unequivocal proof that those Founders still
>alive during consideration of the Titles of Nobility Amendment
>recognized what had been intended by the wording in Article V of the
>Constitution, with regard to the method of submission and ratification
>of amendments to the Constitution. Unless proof to the contrary can be
>produced, or unless you are willing to circumvent one of the greatest
>documents in modern history, which you have sworn to uphold and defend,
>you must conclude that the ratification process excludes all States who
>became members of the Union AFTER the submission of this Amendment to
>the states for ratification.
> Those who have come to a conclusion contrary to what has been stated
>above, should be held to account, and provide proof to the contrary.
>This proof must be from the historic record, as are ours.
> If there is no documented proof to the contrary, it is imperative that
>the National Archives and the Library of Congress be informed of their
>error, and the record set straight. Acknowledgment of the proper process
>must be provided, in writing, and officially, so as to preclude
>subsequent diminishment of that sacred document, and all consideration
>of the ratification of any amendment to the Constitution held to the
>standards established by our forefathers. A few men desiring, for
>whatever purpose, to revise the Constitution by actions, rather than
>fact, should not be tolerated. To allow this practice in this subject,
>or any other, is to convert a government of law to a government of men.
> If, for any reason, the conclusion expressed above seems vague or
>ambiguous, David, Thomas and I, would be more than happy to present
>these matters to an open Congressional hearing..
> Further, I would appreciate being provided a copy of any
>correspondence in this matter
> Finally, I have attached a copy of a letter of introduction received
>from Senator Pete Domenici. If the other recipients of this letter would
>be so kind as to provide similar letters of introduction, it may
>facilitate our continued research.
>I await, anxiously, your response to this letter,
>Thank You,
>I am, &c., &c.,
>/S/
>Brian H. March
>
>attachments: Exhibits 1 though 7
> letter of introduction
>
>"... It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
>tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people's minds."
> Samuel Adams
>**************************
> As you can see, the significance of EXACTLY what Article V of the
>Constitution really means is critical to the issue of whether the
>Amendment was ratified, or not. The recent 'activation' of the 27th
>Amendment, not surprisingly, came shortly after the research at the
>Archives and Library of Congress began. Almost if as a smoke screen to
>'change' the method of ratification from what the Founders envisioned to
>what today's attorneys would prefer. Let me repeat one paragraph of the
>letter:
>
> "If there is no documented proof to the contrary, it is imperative
>that the National Archives and the Library of Congress be informed of
>their error, and the record set straight. Acknowledgment of the proper
>process must be provided, in writing, and officially, so as to preclude
>subsequent diminishment of that sacred document, and all consideration
>of the ratification of any amendment to the Constitution held to the
>standards established by our forefathers. A few men desiring, for
>whatever purpose, to revise the Constitution by actions, rather than
>fact, should not be tolerated. To allow this practice in this subject,
>or any other, is to convert a government of law to a government of men.
>
>Gary Hunt,
>Outpost of Freedom
>opf@azi.com
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail