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