Are You Still Struggling With Your A, B, C’s?

This isn’t something I’m proud to admit, but 30 years ago I couldn’t have told you anything about the Constitution other than it created the 3 branches of our government and supposedly had some kind of checks and balances within it. Like I said, I’m not proud of that fact, but I’m not ashamed of it either; it is what it is. Fast forward to now and I probably know more about that document than everyone within a 5 mile radius of me. Not bragging, as I said, it is what it is.

The funny thing about this is, I’ve barely scratched the surface in regards to what there is to learn. If there is one thing I have learned, however, it can best be summed up by something Albert Einstein once said, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.”

I would never have gotten to where I am today had it not been for the help and guidance of a few key people who entered into my life at crucial moments in my studies. One such individual was Mike Gaddy. I’d love to spend time discussing how much of an influence he has been, and how much I appreciate the little clues and snippets of information he has dangled in front of my nose for me to pursue; but now it not the time. What I do want to discuss is what I’ve learned after he dangled one such tantalizing tidbit of information in front of me.

Before I get to that I just want to make sure your memories are refreshed. If you recall, in my most recent ravings I’ve made the claim that I believe the Convention of 1787, or the Constitutional Convention as most people call it, was, in effect, a coup against the existing Confederation government.

Those who produced the Constitution of 1787 did so without having the authority to do anything other than come up with proposals for amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Not only that, once they’d written a document that would abolish the Confederation, they then dictated the terms by which the Constitution would be either adopted or rejected; a clear violation of the existing constitution, i.e. The Articles of Confederation.

The sad thing about all this is that instead of the Confederation Congress, and the State Legislatures telling them to stick their proposed Constitution where the sun doesn’t shine and went on with their lives as if the Convention of 1787 hadn’t even taken place. But they didn’t, and here we are, stuck with the consequences of a decision made 232 years ago.

The thing is, I knew all that from my own research, along with a few gentle nudges in the right direction from my friend Mike. What I didn’t know, or hadn’t given that much thought to, was who was behind this little coup. Sure, I knew the names of the major players in this drama, but I’d never really stopped to think about who they represented, or what specifically, whose interests they served when they did what they did.

That is the carrot that my friend Mike dangled in front of me; the tantalizing tidbit that led me down a pathway that I hadn’t even considered before. Twenty-four hours after the conversation that put me on that pathway I had an entirely new outlook on the Convention of 1787, and those behind it; and what I’ve learned is what I’m about to share with you.

Before I get down to the nitty gritty, let me provide you with a simple statistic to think about. In the year 1787 the population of the United States was around 3.9 million people. Seventy-four people were chosen to attend the Convention of 1787; out of which only 55 actually attended. For one reason or another, 19 delegates did not attend.

Now think about that for a minute. Fifty-five people were about to deliberate and make decisions that would affect millions of people. How could those 55 people know the needs, wants, and circumstances of every class of people out of a total population of 3.9 million people? Simple answer, they couldn’t. So the question we must ask ourselves is; whose interests did they serve while deliberating behind closed and locked doors?

The first step on this little journey began when Mike asked me who the delegates to the Convention of 1787; not their names, more like their bio’s; what professions they had and whose/what interests they might serve. To answer that I began researching the bio’s of those who did attend the convention, and I began to notice a disturbing trend. Then of course, Mike also aided my research by sending an e mail that better explained what I’d already begun to suspect.

Before I tell you the conclusion I came to, let me provide some data I discovered and let’s see if you notice the same thing that I did when I first started researching this.

James Madison was a delegate from the Commonwealth of Virginia, but he had been schooled in the North and picked up many of their bad habits and attitudes. Oh, and he was also a lawyer.

Alexander Hamilton was also a lawyer, and had close ties to both American and British banking interests.

William Blount, of South Carolina was one of those speculators I spent so much time disparaging in a recent rant.

John Rutledge, Oliver Ellsworth, Rufus King, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, and Edmund Randolph were all lawyers as well.

Then of course there was Robert Morris, who, it was claimed, single handedly financed the American Revolution. What isn’t widely known is that Morris was also guilty of embezzling, or at least defrauding the Confederation Congress out of a lot of money; millions in today’s currency. The essayist Centinel would later write a scathing condemnation of Morris; but that’s jumping too far forward for the time being.

The pattern I began to notice, which was later strengthened by Mike’s e mail was that those who attended this convention of schemers were closely tied to business and banking interests, with a good number of them being lawyers. Those who attended this convention seemed to be representative of the big urban centers and wealthy landowners, and not very representative at all of the common folk who made up the vast majority of the people in the U.S.; the very people who had taken up their arms and risked their lives so that America could be a free and independent country.

There are many titles that could be applied to those who attended the Convention of 1787 and pushed for this new, centralized system of government. Federalist’s is one of the terms which I’ve used in the past, and others might include Monarchists and Nationalists. For the sake of consistancy I will stick to calling them Nationalists from here forward.

Although this pattern was, in and of itself, cause for concern, it is what happened once these Nationalists got their wish, and their precious Constitution that went into effect causes that pattern to become even more disturbing.

Before I continue I feel I must explain what a constitution is. Had the public school system done its job and taught us this information, I wouldn’t have to; but, since the public school system failed to do so, I fear I must explain what a constitution is. However, instead of listening to me ramble on about it, let’s just let the words of Thomas Paine speak for me, “A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature. The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.”

The Constitution, the one adopted in 1789, is not, nor was it ever, a document in which a government contracted with the people to give itself powers. It was an act of the people, (although in this case the people weren’t truly represented very well), by which they laid out the plans for a system of government; including the form it would take and the powers that it would be allowed to exercise on behalf of those who created it. Therefore, the government established by the Constitution could not alter, or increase the powers given it by those who had created it.

It is imperative that you grasp that principle as we continue…

Continuing my narrative, once the Constitution was ratified the system of government it outlined was put into effect/operation. The next question which was posed to me by my friend Mike was, who made up the first government? For the most part, those who comprised the very first government under the newly adopted Constitution were those who had supported its ratification; in other words, Nationalists.

George Washington, although he did not claim allegiance to any political party, was strongly Nationalist in his beliefs. Then again, and I could be wrong, I’ve come to believe that Washington was a puppet to Alexander Hamilton; someone who was in over his head in regards to his political savvy. However, that belief is affirmed by something Forrest McDonald wrote about Washington in his book, E Pluribus Unum, “Washington, at fifty-four (or at any other age), could have added little to the intellectual average of any convention, and his knowledge of what to do in one barely extended beyond rules of order. But that was all he needed to know, for any assembly he attended was likely to elect him presiding officer. He had two attributes that, even without his unparalleled prestige, prompted men to choose him The Leader; and it mattered not that one of the attributes was trivial and the other he carried to the point of triviality, nor did it matter that for the last third of his life he was largely (and self-consciously) playing a role. The first attribute was that he looked like a leader. In an age in which most Americans stood about five feet five and measured nearly three-fourths that around the waist, Washington stood six feet and had broad, powerful shoulders and slim hips; and he had learned the trick, when men said something beyond his ken, of looking at them in a way that made them feel irreverent or even stupid. The other attribute was personal integrity. At times, Washington’s integrity was bewildering, for his artlessness and his susceptibility to flattery led him to endorse actions that less scrupulous but more cagey men might shun; and at times it could be overbearing, stifling. But it was unimpeachable, and everyone knew it, and that, above all, made Washington useful. Others would do the brain work and the dirty work; Washington needed only to be there, but if there was to be a national government he absolutely had to be there, to lend his name to the doings.”

I know that sounds pretty disparaging towards the man who served his country as commander of the Continental Army, then went on to become our first President, but from what I’ve read about his administration, and how he listened more to Hamilton than he did his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, I am inclined to believe that those words are true.

So, not only was Washington Nationalist in his leanings, so was his Vice-President, John Adams; who would eventually be opposed by his own Vice-President, (Jefferson), once he became President.

So the Executive Branch was Nationalist in their political leanings. The Senate was even more so, with mostly lawyers and those who had close ties to big business and banking interests constituting the majority of the first Senate. Then, to put the icing on the cake for these Nationalists, they got to choose every member to the newly established Supreme Court, which is critical for my narrative.

While the Constitution was being argued among the people those who supported its ratification were forced to accept that some kind of Bill of Rights be adopted in order to gain the votes of certain states for ratification. So you would think that to satisfy those who had consented to implement their little plan for government that the first act of Congress would be to keep their promise and adopt a Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately that wasn’t what happened. What happened was that the Nationalists sought to immediately strengthen the power of the Judicial Branch by passing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which almost entirely rewrote Article 3 of the Constitution – a clear violation of their legislative authority. Of course, George Washington, being the Nationalist that he was, immediately signed it into law; making it the first official unconstitutional bill signed into law by a United States president.

Article III of the Constitution states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” So, it was within Congresses delegated authority to establish inferior courts, but it was not within their power to usurp the judicial power of the States, nor to grant the Judicial branch more power than was originally delegated it; which is exactly what the Judiciary Act of 1789 did. I could go into great detail regarding the intricacies of the Judicial Act of 1789, but then I’d end up writing a book instead of an essay. So I’ll try, (no promises), to keep this short.

The Constitution did give Congress the authority to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, which the Judiciary Act did do; establishing District and Circuit Courts. Unfortunately it did a whole lot more than just establish inferior courts.

For instance, in Section 9 of the Judiciary Act it states, “That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States.” I’m no legal expert, but that sure sounds like it gives these newly established inferior court’s jurisdiction, or supremacy, over the courts of the several states.

Then in Section 17 I read a whopper. You may have recalled me mentioning how jury nullification was an effective tool in staving off the advancement of tyranny. Well Section 17 says that those who show contempt for the authority of judges, (which I take to also include jurors) could be punished by a new trial held by one of these newly established federal courts, “And be it further enacted, That all the said courts of the United States shall have power to grant new trials, in cases where there has been a trial by jury for reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law; and shall have power to impose and administer all necessary oaths or affirmations, and to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same.”

And then in Section 27 I read the biggest whopper of them all, these newly established courts were to have their own police force, “And be it further enacted, That a marshal shall be appointed in and for each district for the term of four years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure, whose duty it shall be to attend the district and circuit courts when sitting therein, and also the Supreme Court in the District in which that court shall sit. And to execute throughout the district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States, and he shall have power to command all necessary assistance in the execution of his duty, and to appoint as there shall be occasion, one or more deputies, who shall be removable from office by the judge of the district court, or the circuit court sitting within the district, at the pleasure of either; and before he enters on the duties of his office, he shall become bound for the faithful performance of the same, by himself and by his deputies before the judge of the district court to the United States.” (My emphasis)

You may have recalled me recently providing numerous quotes from those who were labeled as Anti-Federalists regarding their opposition to the system of government outlined by the Constitution. Well here’s another such quote from Patrick Henry, “The officers of the [proposed Federal] government will be screened from punishment by the Federal judiciary. The federal sheriff will go into the poor man’s house and beat him or abuse his family, and the federal courts will protect him.” I don’t know about you, but it would sure seem that these federal marshals established by the Judiciary Act would be ‘screened from punishment by the Federal judiciary’; after all, they would be working under the orders given them by the selfsame judiciary.

In Section 34 they do make the disclaimer that, “And be it further enacted, That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply.” Unfortunately that disclaimer is only worth the ink it is written with if the government were to restrain itself to the specific powers delegated it, reserving all else to the states – which we know hasn’t been the case.

When Virginia was deciding whether or not to adopt the system of government outlined by the Constitution a great deal of time was spent arguing over the powers given to the federal judiciary, or the Supreme Court. In defense of those powers John Marshall, who would eventually become Chief Justice of this same Supreme Court, declared, “With respect to its cognizance in all cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, he says that, the laws of the United States being paramount to the laws of the particular states, there is no case but what this will extend to. Has the government of the United States power to make laws on every subject? Does he understand it so? Can they make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims, between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard.”

It is ironic that Marshall would say that, because the very first act of Congress was to go beyond their delegated authority and completely re-write Article III of the Constitution; vastly expanding the power of the federal judiciary.

During the period that saw all this happening, Alexander Hamilton was busy trying to consolidate power within the federal government to serve the purposes he felt government should serve; purposes which were shot down during the convention that actually produced the Constitution. Hamilton wanted a strong standing army, something those opposed to the Constitution felt was a threat to liberty. He also sought to use the legislative, or for lack of better words, the coercive power of government to make those like him rich; in today’s words we might call these people one’s political base.

Think back to the professions of those who attended the Convention of 1787 and you’ll recall that many of them were merchants, bankers, speculators and wealthy land owners. Those were the people who formed the political base of the Federalist Party; those who I’ve assigned the name of Nationalists.

One of the things that Hamilton sought to do was to have the federal government assume the debts of the individual states; debts that had been accumulated during the Revolution. This too was a step beyond the specifically delegated powers given government by the Constitution, and was fought against by the Anti-Federalists until a compromise was met; the Anti-Federalists would agree to allow the government to assume the debts if the location of the, yet to be named seat of the federal government, be located further south than either Philadelphia or New York; a decision Thomas Jefferson would later regret making.

So let’s recap so far. First we have a bunch of lawyers, bankers and businessmen orchestrating a coup which saw the legitimate government abolished and one of their own creation taking is place. Next we see that the very first thing this new government did was to expand the power of the Judicial Branch of this government. Then finally, the powers given this new government was being used, not to serve the common people who this Constitution had promised to secure justice to, but to make those who wrote it, and pushed for its adoption filthy rich.

Sound good so far? Oh, but this only gets better…

By the time the second Federalist President, John Adams, was coming up for re-election inflation in the United States had increased to around 80%…79% to be exact. Although big business and banking was happy, some of the people weren’t so happy with the direction this new system of government had taken. So a change was in the wind, and it appeared that the former Anti-Federalists, which were now called, Democratic-Republicans, were gaining support and may win the presidential election coming up in 1800.

At the head of this new Democratic-Republican party was none other than Thomas Jefferson, who had fought against Hamilton and his cronies since being appointed to Washington’s cabinet as Secretary of State. Even so, after having his advice and counsel fall upon the deaf ears of President Washington, he resigned his position and retired to his home at Monticello. Then, while serving as Vice-President under John Adams, he and Adams, who had once been close friends in the cause of liberty, split due to the direction President Adams was taking the government.

The possible election of Thomas Jefferson was a threat to the power these Nationalists had consolidated. I’ve mentioned in other articles how Oliver Ellsworth and Rufus King had suggested a division of the Union because the North-Eastern States would never submit to the policies of a government led by a Southerner, so that is one bit of evidence that shows that they felt the policy of limited government espoused by men like Jefferson was a threat to their Nationalist agenda.

But then President Adams took the low road and sought to undermine the power of incoming President Thomas Jefferson. As we all know, the results of an election are decided in November, yet the transfer of power does not take place until January. This period is known as a lame duck presidency; a period when the successor to the presidency has already been chosen, and the existing president’s power is less than normal.

During this period in President Adam’s tenure in office he decided to stack the courts with Nationalist judges in the hopes that they would diminish the power of incoming president Jefferson. Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted something similar in 1937 with the proposed Judicial Procedures Reform Bill.

Serving as Secretary of State under outgoing President Adams was none other than John Marshall, who in the Virginia Ratifying debates had ensured his fellow delegates that the Judiciary would not threaten the authority of the State Courts. For one reason or another, Secretary of State Marshall did not deliver all the letters of appointment to these new judges.

Then in comes Thomas Jefferson, and appoints James Madison as his Secretary of State, (one of the many instances in which Madison switched positions, or sides). Jefferson orders Madison to halt delivery of these final appointments to the court, which leads William Marbury, one of those appointees, to sue.

Now here is where it gets a bit complicated. During Adam’s tenure as a lame duck president the existing Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Oliver Ellsworth, resigned due to ill health. Adams, in a panic I assume, chose to nominate John Jay, another strong Nationalist. But Jay refused the nomination because he felt the power of the federal judiciary had been diminished. Can you believe that? He refused because he wouldn’t have ENOUGH power as Chief Justice!

So Adams, pulling out what little hair he had left, nominated none other than John Marshall. Marshall was quickly approved, as the Nationalists still controlled government and wanted one of their own as Chief Justice. This sets the stage for what happened next.

As I said, William Marbury sued to get his appointment letter, a letter that Jefferson refused to have delivered to him. The case ended up in the Supreme Court, of which John Marshall was the Chief Justice of. Now if you remember, it was this same John Marshall who had failed to deliver Marbury’s letter of appointment; so Marshall should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Yet Marshall didn’t do what was right, instead he chose to sit and decide the outcome of a case in which he was a party to.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Marbury v Madison is heralded as a landmark case in which the SCOTUS decided that IT has the authority to decide the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. How Marshall did this was by claiming that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III of the Constitution; therefore Marshall claimed that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. This established the precedent of Judicial Review; where the SCOTUS gave itself, and not those who had adopted the Constitution, the power to decide what laws were, and which weren’t constitutional.

In a letter to Abigail Adams, Jefferson would voice his thoughts on the case of Marbury v Madison, “BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” Yet from the very beginning, before the Constitution was even adopted, that had been the intent of those who drafted it; create a system of government with its own judiciary, which could then determine the limits to its own power.

If that does not cause you to withdraw all your support for this system of government, and the document that established it, then I don’t know what will. But it gets even more interesting.

While Jefferson was serving as President one of the Nationalist judges serving as Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase, was a frequent, and outspoken opponent of the policies of the Jefferson administration. One of the things that angered Chase was the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, which unseated many Nationalist judges.

Chase was using his position on the Supreme Court as a platform to push for Nationalist candidates and a Nationalist agenda. In 1804 the House of Representatives brought up charges of impeachment against Samuel Chase. For instance, the 8th Article of impeachment declared, “The said Samuel Chase, disregarding the duties and dignity of his judicial character, did, at a circuit court, for the District of Maryland, held in Baltimore, in the month of May, 1803, pervert his official right and duty to address the grand jury then and there assembled, on the matters coming within the province of the said jury, for the purpose of delivering to the said grand jury an intemperate and inflammatory political harangue, with intent to excite the fears and resentment of the grand jury, and of the good people of Maryland against their state government, and constitution.” If ever a charge of sedition existed, that would be the defining characteristic of it.

Yet the Senate, either could not, or would not convict Chase on any of the 8 charges leveled against him, leading Thomas Jefferson to later lament, “Having found from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scarecrow, they [the Judiciary] consider themselves secure for life.” (Source: Letter to Thomas Ritchie, 1820)

Clinton was never impeached, even though there were serious allegations leveled against him. Instead his impeachment proceedings turned into a circus sideshow focused on his sexual escapades with Monica Lewinski.

I think the Trump impeachment proceedings are of the same nature, a circus used to keep the two political sides at odds against each other, while government as an entity keeps on keeping on with business as usual; which means making the base of both parties filthy rich.

Just look at government today. We have a standing army, both a military and a militarized federal and local law enforcement one; each willing and ready to enforce whatever decrees which come down on high from their masters; Congress and the President. The Constitution no longer limits the powers given government, that is done by Supreme Court rulings, leaving the will of the governed completely at the mercy of whatever side of the issue the SCOTUS comes down upon.

Politicians serve special interests more than they do us, which means they pass laws and enact regulations that benefit those special interests more than they do us. Our foreign policy is dictated by the military industrial complex; something we were warned about as recently as the late 1950’s with outgoing president Eisenhower’s speech about the rising military industrial complex. The Food and Drug Administration rubber stamps approval for drugs that are worse for us than the illnesses they claim to treat. The DEA enforces laws that tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies; a clear infringement upon our liberty. The BATF enforces laws the deprive us of our right to keep and bear arms. The TSA and NSA have shredded the 4th Amendment with their unlawful searches upon us, and their invasive surveillance of our electronic communications.

Need I go on? But by God, if we vote this asshole out and our guy in everything is going to be just Hunky Dory in the land of the free. Please, don’t be that damned naive and ignorant! This government is evil, it is corrupt, and anyone who has an ounce of love and respect for their liberty should be raising their voice in opposition to it.

This government IS the final outcome of what those who drafted it envisioned, and if all I’ve written over the past couple months haven’t clearly proven that then there is absolutely no hope that you’ll ever see the light.

The only way we’ll ever restore America to the principles it was founded upon in 1776 is to excise the cancer that is eating away at our rights and our liberty; the United States government. It was created in secret to overthrow the existing government, and from day 1 of its existence has sought to increase its own power, while diminishing that which was held by the States, with a corresponding loss of liberty for the people it claims to serve.

I know these recent articles have been long, and they’ve been more complicated than the ones you are used to. I look at it this way, when you begin school you are taught the alphabet. Then, as you progress, you are taught to write simple sentences. You then go on to forming paragraphs, from which you advance to writing essays or books.

Well, I’m here writing books and most of the people in this country are still struggling with the alphabet; the basic concepts of liberty and limited government.

The funny/sad thing is, I left out a lot of what I wanted to discuss for fear of tiring you, or hitting you with info you just weren’t ready for yet. But, for bonus material for those who have made it to the end of this rant, here are a few other things you may want to think about.

I would hope that most of you know that for a lawyer to practice law here in the U.S. they have to take a bar exam which proved they have learned the law to a sufficient extent that they are capable of representing their clients in court. But, do you know what the acronym BAR stand for? The word bar stands for British Accredited Registry and comes from back in 1600’s when it was first introduced in London. In 1761 the first BAR association was established in Boston, so that the Crown would only allow those lawyers who were given permission to practice law could defend clients in British run courts.

Are you aware that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution states, “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.” Well if you weren’t you are now.

Are you then aware that when someone passes their bar exam and becomes an accredited lawyer they are given the title of ‘esquire’; which then is a title of nobility by a British run Accrediting Agency…or a foreign state?

So according to Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution each and every lawyer must have the permission of Congress before they are given the title of ‘esquire’; which tends to lend support to my claim that this system of government was created by, and serves lawyers and other wealthy interests.

To make matters even more interesting, are you aware that a constitutional amendment was in the works prior to the Civil War which would have severely restricted a lawyers ability to hold any position whatsoever under the Constitution? Like I said a few moments ago, if you didn’t know, you do now.

Known as the TONA Amendment, or Titles of Nobility Amendment, it would have, not only not allowed them to hold any position in government, it would have stripped them of their citizenship, “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.”

I’m not making this up, you can Google it for yourself if you don’t believe me. Twice, both in 1812 and in 1816, this amendment was within 2 votes of being ratified by the required number of States. As constitutional amendments have no deadline imposed upon their ratification, should 26 states now decide to vote in favor of this amendment, it WOULD become part of the constitution, and deprive every lawyer in America of their citizenship, making them ineligible for office under government.

Think about that for a minute, no shyster lawyers in politics; what a marvelous thing that would be.

But none of what I have just said matters. I’ll be lucky if 1% of the people read and agree with it; the other 99% will go on with their lives being totally apathetic to what’s going on around them, or support one of the two political parties; meaning support and consent to the idea of being governed by a system where their only limitations upon their power is their own evil imaginations.

So go ahead, while you still struggle with the alphabet, I’m gonna pick up another novel and see what else I can learn. Maybe sometime in the future posterity will awaken and realize that there were a few of us who tried to warn people what was happening, and they will develop a spine and rise up against this evil that most Americans willing consent to and support – their own government.

With that said, have a very pleasant day…

About Br'er Rabbit

I'm just one person out of millions of others. The only thing different about me is that I don't walk around with my head up my ass.
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Are You Still Struggling With Your A, B, C’s?

  1. Richard Ludwigson Jr says:

    I have heard f this before as it was called the original 13th amendment. I googled it and found many articles about it. Herre s a link to just one of them…. It seems to me that it as actually ratified and should be enforced, what do you think?

  2. Here’s something I found several years ago & held onto because of its profound significance which you alluded to in your article today. This article says that the “lost”13th Amendment was actually ratified. Enjoy this rabbit hole.

    Missing 13th Amendment Found: “No Lawyers In Public Office”
    Posted on October 30, 2015 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in News, US // 90 Comments
    A missing 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been found which says that no lawyers should be allowed into public office
    The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been altered from its original in order to fool the American public into accepting a government that is mostly illegally in office.
    The information contained in the article below contains stunning revelations that the entire U.S. congress should be deemed illegitimate, after evidence that a clandestine plot to alter the U.S. Constitution has now emerged. reports:
    In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.
    By chance, they discovered the library’s oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this “missing” 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history — the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States.
    Sponsored by Revcontent

    Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the “missing” 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from the U.S. Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.
    The story of this “missing” Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment’s meaning and consequent current relevance.
    MEANING of the 13th Amendment
    The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
    “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.”
    At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the “title of nobility” Amendment) seems obscure; unimportant. The references to “nobility,” “honour,” “emperor,” “king,” and “prince,” lead us to dismiss this Amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. The U.S. modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, make anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.
    Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787);
    Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited “titles of nobility” several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though “titles of nobility” were already prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.
    To understand the meaning of this “missing” 13th Amendment, we must understand its historical context — the era surrounding the American Revolution. We tend to regard the notion of “Democracy” as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies.
    Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved. Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn’t destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception — it was, perhaps, the first “cold war”. Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy’s counter- revolutionary efforts emanated
    from English banks.
    DON’T BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System)
    The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England:”The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin… Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again… Take this great power away from them, or if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.”
    The last great abuse of the U.S. banking system caused the depression of the 1930’s. Today’s abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you’re not being robbed? Guess who’s going to pay the bill for the excesses of the S&L’s, U.S.-taxpayer? You are.) The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic bankers and
    lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America despite early colonial prohibitions.
    When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks. Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client’s gold. In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue “extra” notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the “extra” notes enriched the bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did not even exist. Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a “run on the bank”. If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometime hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive members of society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers “sweetheart” loans to bank insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and the U.S. Federal government’s unbridled growth.)
    If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin. It’s often suggested that the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against a paper economy — “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts” — was a tool of the wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in a “paper” economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims of the wealthy at the
    expense of the productive.
    “Paper money,” said Pelatiah Webster, “polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of U.S. country, and went far to destroy the morality of U.S. people.”
    A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that almost succeeded in destroying the United States:
    According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1820, vol. II, p. 774), in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin’s grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public uproar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government. Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would U.S. Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It doesn’t make sense, especially in light of Senate’s secrecy and later fury over being exposed, unless we assume U.S. Senators had been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. That’s subversion.
    The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) won out in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000 — 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn’t exist.
    However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796, the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By 1802, the U.S. government owned no stock in the United States Bank.) The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence representative government by economic manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that European banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress therefore refused to renew the bank’s charter. This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by European investors, which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812. That’s destruction.
    There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy’s efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David Dodge discovered a book called “2 VA LAW” in the Library of Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, “This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this Amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification was lost in the mail. There is no public record that this book exists.” That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), “the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts.” There may be secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional Amendment.
    In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America.
    Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as “legitimate businessmen”. As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them “titles of nobility”.
    Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as “Squires” and to those who bore the knight’s shields as “Esquires”. As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was “Esquire” (used, even today, by some lawyers).
    In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no “title of nobility” or “honor”. There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen’s “counsel of choice” was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank “Esquire” — a “title of nobility”. “Esquire” was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States.
    Why? Because the loyalty of “Esquire” lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an “Esquire” behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
    Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a “title of nobility” amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
    The missing Amendment is referred to as the “title of nobility” Amendment, but the second prohibition against “honour” (honor), may be more significant.
    According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster’s Dictionary, the archaic definition of “honor” (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone “obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another”. A contemporary example of an “honor” granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.
    By prohibiting “honors”, the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an “honor”) over other citizens.
    If this interpretation is correct, “honor” would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while “titles of nobility” may no longer apply in today’s political system, the concept of “honor” remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific “immunity” from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an “honor”, and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the “immunities” from lawsuits that U.S. judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the “special interest” legislation the U.S. government passes: “special interests” are simply euphemisms for “special privileges” (honors).
    WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored)
    If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, “special interests” and “immunities” might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against “honors” (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), US judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, the entire U.S. Government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term “honor” were applied today, U.S. Government’s ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated.
    Imagine! A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be … almost like … a government … of the people … by the people … for the people! Imagine: a government … whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people! It’s unheard of … it’s never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world.
    Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the U.S. National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when Congress proposed the “title of nobility” Amendment; that ratification required the thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United States which include the “title of nobility” Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.
    Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and Dunn’s research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an extraordinary story. Can you imagine, can you understand how close the US came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close we came? One vote. One state’s vote.
    The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state’s support. One vote. David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims he has the evidence to prove it.
    In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a “title of Nobility” (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn’t passed, this was the first time a “title of nobility” amendment was proposed.
    Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another “Title of Nobility” Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification:
    “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 Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress proposed the “Title of Nobility” Amendment in 1810, there were states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of ratification:
    Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
    Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
    Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
    Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811
    Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
    New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
    Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
    Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
    Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
    North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811
    Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
    New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812
    Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection between the proposed “title of nobility” amendment and the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.
    Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature’s position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified).
    On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams’ letter.) Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.
    However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, “misc.’ file, p. 299 for micro-film): “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto…” This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day — the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendment’s official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.
    The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.)
    In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
    There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or
    communicate the ratification of amendments.
    Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation’s ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did.
    Word of Virginia’s 1819 ratification spread throughout the States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20. Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860. So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publications over forty-one years. And more editions including this 13th Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is onto something.
    You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which ordered it published eighteen times we’ve discovered (so far) consisted of ignorant politicians who don’t know their amendments from their… ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince the public that our U.S. forefathers never meant to “outlaw” public servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors to “look the other way.” Maybe. But before you do, there’s an awful lot of evidence to be explained.
    In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes:
    “In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76.” In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74).
    It’s not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in anticipation of Virginia’s ratification, or as part of a plot to discredit the Amendment by making it appear that only twelve States had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact, it’s not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed — the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its existence.
    However, because the noted authors reported no further references to the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia’s ratification. This opinion — assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment — has persisted to this day.
    In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia (which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It was at that time that one of the code’s revisers (a lawyer named Patton) wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States. This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of State John Quincy Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818, before Virginia’s ratification in 1819. (Even today, the Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this 13th Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the
    requisite thirteen, had ratified.)
    However, despite Clayton’s opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860). Once again the 13th Amendment was caught in the riptides of American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, signaling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.
    Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read:
    “ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
    In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states’ rights. Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was finally removed from the US Constitution. On January 31, another 13th Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states’ rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended with General Lee’s surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the “new” 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was ratified, replacing and effectively erasing the original 13th Amendment that had prohibited “titles of nobility” and “honors”.
    To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which the U.S. now endures, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th “titles of nobility” Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power.
    Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as “Esquires” and received the “honor” of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only they could hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This two-tiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans’ political interests, the nation’s economic welfare, and the Constitution’s egalitarian spirit.
    The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from the current US government system.
    At the very least, this missing 13th Amendment demonstrates that two centuries ago, lawyers were recognized as enemies of the people and nation. Some things never change.
    THOSE WHO CANNOT RECALL HISTORY …. Heed warnings of Founding FathersIn his farewell address, George Washington warned of “… change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” In 1788, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of Rights similar to Virginia’s. Three of his suggestions were “freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by jury in all cases” and “no suspensions of the
    habeas corpus.”
    No doubt Washington’s warning and Jefferson’s ideas were dismissed as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed the U.S. legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when that was one of the primary causes for the rebellion against King George III?
    Yet, the denial of trial by jury is now commonplace in the U.S. courts, and habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, is suspended. (By crimes against the state, I refer to “political crimes” where there is no injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is equally imaginary.)
    The authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et al during the early 1800’s. Judges (and lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the People “un-Constitutional”, waited until their decision was grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the bar associations. Although Article VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates that executive orders and treaties are binding upon the states (“… and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”), the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw in “Notes on the State of Virginia”, Query 17, p. 161, 1784:
    “Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless… the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”
    We await the inevitable convulsion. Only two questions remain: Will we fight to revive our rights? Or, Will we meekly submit as our last remaining rights expire, surrendered to the courts, and perhaps to a “new world order”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.