Time: Sun Nov 24 18:15:21 1996 To: "Andrew G. Lehr" <agl@locke.ccil.org> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Does 13th A Disqualify Lawyers? Cc: Bcc: At 10:30 AM 11/24/96 -0500, you wrote: > >DOES THE "ORIGINAL 13TH AMENDMENT" DISQUALIFY LAWYERS? > "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." Text of Article XIII, proposed 1809. > This single sentence has created much controversy, but aside from >the debate over whether the amendment was ever properly ratified, it seems >that the exact meaning of the amendment has been widely misinterpreted. >Specifically, the claim that the amendment disqualifies those using the >title "Esquire" has been widely circulated, but has, in my opinion, not >been proven, and may be based on a misreading of the amendment. > I would want to research original intent before reaching any >definitive conclusion, but the plain reading of the amendment does not >support its application to persons using the title "Esquire" or any other >title not actually accepted, claimed, received or retained "from any >emperor, king, prince, or foreign state." This can be made clear by a >simple exercise. STEP 1: > Suppose the drafters of the original 13th had decided to bar the >acceptance and retention of "any present, pension, office, or emolument of >any kind whatsoever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power," >regardless of whether Congress consented or not. If this had been the >framers' intention, the amendment could have read as follows: > "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, >or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall 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." STEP 2: > Now suppose the framers decided to drop the language concerning >presents, pensions, offices or emoluments entirely. In that event, the >amendment could have read as follows: > "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, >or retain any title of nobility or honour 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." > This exercise reveals that the amendment only disqualifies >citizens with a title of nobility or honour **from any emperor, king, >prince, or foreign power**. > Consequently, proponents of the argument that lawyers are >disqualified by the amendment bear the burden of proving that persons >using the title "Esquire" have accepted, claimed, received or retained >such title from a foreign power. Where is the evidence to support such a >claim? In Velma Griggs' book. /s/ Paul Mitchell I have not seen it, aside from some nebulous claims that bar >associations are somehow under British dominion, and yet I have often seen >the assertion that lawyers are not citizens and are disqualified from >holding public office by virtue of the original 13th Amendment. Without >this essential evidence, such assertions cannot be accepted as proven. > Even assuming the amendment was properly ratified and is part of >the constitution, this burden of proof remains. Until it is met, it would >be wise not to make the assertion as if it were proven fact. --Andrew >Lehr Common Law Network >Pennsylvania Committee of Correspondence > > > > > > > > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail