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