The "Missing" 13th Amendment, an odd Constitution story

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Did you know the 13th Amendment supplanted an original 13th Amendment already on the books? I am being completely serious for once, follow me below the fold:

So what is in this mystery 13th Amendment:

"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."

So was it ratified or not? It seems to be more legal than the current one that was never properly ratified.

Also this has never been struck down and therefore should still be in effect. If so what does that mean to Rudy? Rudolph Giuliani, Knight of the British Empire.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I thought that bit was already in the pre-Amended Constitution. So it would make little sense to have it there again.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I thought that bit was already in the pre-Amended Constitution. So it would make little sense to have it there again.

How could the 13th amendment be in the unamended constitution? Maybe you can quote it. And again dosent this rule Rudy out?

[GeneralHankerchief]

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person 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.

Seems pretty clear to me.

-edit- As long as he doesn't use the title I think he's okay.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Seems pretty clear to me.

Seems different to me.

How does this

"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

Square with

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person 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.

Big difference there.


Anyone wonder why they put this rule in there?

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Doesnt look like they intended it to meet year round and control everything does it? So much of that is totally ignored.

[GeneralHankerchief]

2 things:

- You seem to be using it for a modern perspective; i.e. to prevent Rudy from running. However, it had to be ratified between June 15, 1804 and July 28, 1868 in order for it to be #13. What event in that span could have possibly convinced enough people that this minor change merited an amendment? Was somebody knighted during the Civil War or something?

- There are really no links to back your argument, just a picture of an old-looking book. Besides, it's labeled Page 46 but if you look closely at the image the book looks much thicker than that. Every major credible source in the world says that the actual XIII Amendment was about slavery, not titles of nobility.

Give me one link showing that this Amendment was ratified, proposed, or mentioned one day during a particular session in an opium den and I'll take this seriously.

[HoreTore]

So a US citizen can't work for the UN?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

- You seem to be using it for a modern perspective; i.e. to prevent Rudy from running.

Im from NY . I like Rudy actually.

- There are really no links to back your argument, just a picture of an old-looking book. Besides, it's labeled Page 46 but if you look closely at the image the book looks much thicker than that. Every major credible source in the world says that the actual XIII Amendment was about slavery, not titles of nobility.

Give me one link showing that this Amendment was ratified, proposed, or mentioned one day during a particular session in an opium den and I'll take this seriously.

Silly me did I forget the link?
The "Missing" 13th Amendment, an odd Constitution story











[IMG][/IMG]







Hmm the 14th amendment sure looks like the current 13th doesnt it?







I guess it was a pretty well kept secret huh?

[Husar]

There, a pyramid with an eye, got to be some secret order running America, probably stonemasons.
It's on your money as well, innit?
I can already see how they have driven your nation into poverty and rule you with the iron fist of a dictatorship.

[doc_bean]

Even I know about that old amendment, AFAIK it was never ratified but remained a popular idea for a long time.

[Tribesman]

So what is in this mystery 13th Amendment:

wow another conspiray theory from Gawain

Also this has never been struck down and therefore should still be in effect.

Since it was never ratified it hasn't been struck down because it doesn't need to be . However conspiracy theorists who have attempted to make a case that it was ratified have had their claims struck down .

It seems to be more legal than the current one that was never properly ratified.

really ? so what part of the ratification process was not done for the real 13th amendment ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

really ? so what part of the ratification process was not done for the real 13th amendment ?

You do the research. Its pretty obvious. Did the Southern States have duly elected governments when they ratified it?

Since it was never ratified it hasn't been struck down because it doesn't need to be . However conspiracy theorists who have attempted to make a case that it was ratified have had their claims struck down .

It was ratified. More so than the 16th thats for sure.

There were 17 states in 1810, so 13 needed to ratify it:
Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/10/155241/107
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

This makes 12.

Then the War of 1812 broke out, and Washington burned to the ground, and all our documents with it. But we won, of course, and we finally got back on track and according to Congressional Records on December 31, 1817 the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe find out about the status of the 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).

On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. So it all comes down to Virginia. There was no West Virginia at this point, keep that in mind.

On March 10, 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.

That makes 13, and is officially in the Constitution.

[Xiahou]

This stuff is all so easily debunked. We could go into the more technical facts about how Virginia never did ratify the amendment- but this is not necessary.

Even if Virginia had ratified the amendment on March 12, 1819 as is (falsely) claimed, it still would not have been enough for the proposed amendment to become part of the Constitution. Why? Because, between 1810 and 1819 four more states joined the USA - Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi and Illinois. Therefore, Virginia's ratification would make no difference one way or the other.

Technically, the amendment is still pending and could be passed, but today it would require ratification by 3/4 of the 50 states- a number it is far from reaching.

Here is a more technical discussion of it, but it's really unnecessary in view of the simple facts I listed above.

[Tribesman]

This stuff is all so easily debunked. We could go into the more technical facts about how Virginia never did ratify the amendment- but this is not necessary.

Ah but Xiahou that debunking is debunked in Gawains article , its the bit where the article goes into real conspiracy theory mode

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ah but Xiahou that debunking is debunked in Gawains article , its the bit where the article goes into real conspiracy theory mode

What conspiracy are you on about? I stated from the start that its ratification is in question. He is not debunking the fact that the 13-th through 15th amendments that we have now are unconstitutional. Its pretty obvious however that without the war of 1812 this would easily have passed. I just found it interesting.

[Tribesman]

What conspiracy are you on about?

Errrrrrrrr.....

Also this has never been struck down and therefore should still be in effect.

I stated from the start that its ratification is in question.

It is not in question , it has simply not been ratified ....that would be the end of story , however you contradict yourself by saying....

It was ratified.

Get your head together Gawain , you cannot seriously say its ratification is in question and then say it is not in question as it was ratified .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Also this has never been struck down and therefore should still be in effect.

I forgot to put the "if " in there so sorry.

Get your head together Gawain , you cannot seriously say its ratification is in question and then say it is not in question as it was ratified .

If you read the link it says its in question. That was in response to the statement it was never ratified. I van support both sides. I do it often.
In fact I closed the opening post with this

So was it ratified or not?

Get your head on straight and stop being so fickle.

[Reverend Joe]

Oh, for the love of Gah. What the hell's the point of this? Who cares?

[Banquo's Ghost]

What the hell's the point of this?

This is the Backroom. Having a point is optional.

Who cares?

This is the Backroom. Someone always cares.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I care but I dont know about what.