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