0 votes

13th amendment - Titles of Nobility - lawyers

I watched parts of Michael Badnarik's constitution class, and one of the parts that catched my attention was what he said about the original 13th amendment - Titles of Nobility, which he believes was ratified. What really catched my attention was his claim, that this should prohibit lawyers from serving in Congress.
I did a quick google search on "laywers titles of nobility", because I wanted to know how those two terms relate to each other.
The first link that you get is this:

http://www.thirdamendment.com/nobility.html

Seems to debunk this theory convincingly. I could spend more time to research this, but I'm sure there are people on the DP that have researched this and can provide some insights.
What troubles me is this is the first thing of this "constitution class" that I research (except what I already know), and it already seems like Michael Badnarik was twisting the truth. I mean, he says he's doing research for 18 years, and this video is 2 years old, he should know better, or at least give two sides of the picture. But I don't want to blame him.
I really enjoyed the videos, and almost everything makes sense, I'd sure like to believe everything.

Enlighten me.

Please don't just repeat the content of or post a link to a site claiming the amendment was ratified, because that's more or less the same content I got from Michael Badnarik, or the second link on my google search.
I want the issues of the debunker site addressed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You may find this of interest

This link has images of documents that have the original 13th Amendment published in them:
http://www.amendment-13.org/publications.html#mil_law

This is my favorite:

In September, 2002, the TONA Research Committee acquired the book "Military Laws of the United States to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United States", authorized by Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, compiled by Major Trueman Cross, Deputy Quarter-Master-General of the Army, published in Washington in 1825. It contains the 13th Amendment in its proper place.

http://www.amendment-13.org/tona/mil_law-1.jpg
http://www.amendment-13.org/tona/mil_law-6.jpg

I find it interesting because this book DOES in fact exist, and that it was authorized by the [then] Secretary of War. I think he would have "caught" that one.

The Ron Paul

newsletters were also quasi authorized by Ron Paul and still not really in line with his thinking.

All I'm saying here is, humans make errors, lots of them. You can't suppose somebody thought something is right or approved of something because he not said otherwise. You can't prove a negative.

It could be or it couldn't it's by no means a proof.

I'm not really in mood for this topic anymore, may others take control over it. :-)

Napolitano: "We need Ron Paul now!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3JNRTVI0Q

This nonsense about titles of

This nonsense about titles of nobility really isn't any of the government's business.

I am out of touch with most Americans precisely because I am not out of touch with reality.

Wtf are you talking about?

Um, how does that link disprove it at all? First of all, according to the list, there were 17 states, and 12 of them approved it. 12 = 3/4 of 17.

Second, this list is from 1818. AFTER the fire that was supposed to have destroyed the ratification documents.

Keep your

emotions to yourself, thank you. They don't have much of a place in civilized discourse.

I'm not attached to this issue and any one opinion on it, on first sight it seems you didn't read the arguments in this thread with a lot of care.
But to be honest, I've other priorities right now, so my current opinion on this is, it could be either way, and I don't even care much at the moment, thanks for your attention.

Yet, there's one basic calculus lesson for you that I can't spare. 17 times 0.75 equals 12.75.

That means 12 < 75%(which is 3/4) of 17.
The number needed at the time according to this is 13. Yes 13 is more than 3/4 technically, but 12 is less, and in cases of voting(and ratification) you need _at least_ 3/4 of votes, not _almost_ 3/4 of the votes. 12 is almost 75%, 13 is the first number that is sufficient for 75%.

Everyone so far in this thread agreed to this, I think.

Sorry, I'm kind of tired right now. :-)

Napolitano: "We need Ron Paul now!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3JNRTVI0Q

null

Emotions can be allowed in civilized discourse, but using the word "emotions" in response to a post that contained a question, and nothing else (including emotions), cannot be. Or at least not in logical "discourse".

you can stay in denial

but "wtf are you talking about?" is a very emotional and disrespectful response in my book.

Did you expect me to invest much effort in "discussions" with you after this? (Especially since this is the first sentence you start our "civilized discourse" with)
Your so called "questions" all contained the "answer" in themselves, so they weren't really questions, more like a big yet disguised disclaimer crying "are you stupid?". Yet what you imply in your first question kind of was lazy and showed that you didn't really bother to understand the arguments, both on the link and in the current discussion so far. So why bother with you? Besides, there's more important things... :-)

Napolitano: "We need Ron Paul now!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3JNRTVI0Q

freiheit, did you ever read

freiheit, did you ever read Discord?

Yes, I just read it

because of your suggestion.

The argument seems to be that Virginia ratified the amendment, but all of Virginia's records of that time disappeared, however in the Revised Code the records were restored, and the people involved in making the revised code, were also responsible during the time the amendment was supposedly ratified, and they were scholars in law. And because they didn't object to the amendment in the revised code, they kind of agreed it was ratified.

Would you agree with that?

Napolitano: "We need Ron Paul now!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3JNRTVI0Q

Two constitutions

The confusion probably revolves around the fact that the corporate constitution used the goverment constitution without the 13th amendment, then added their own 13th amendment (slavery). Team Law has a whole tape about this issue that you can order from them. but in the end, don't believe what someone tells you but prove the facts for yourself.

Proving/Disproving

facts is what I'm trying to do. I really want to stick to this one issue.

Napolitano: "We need Ron Paul now!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3JNRTVI0Q

Read through the links at

Read through the links at this website: http://usa-the-republic.com/amendment_13/index.html Specifically: http://www.amendment-13.org/

You will find that Virginia gave it the ratifying vote when it published it's Revised Code in 1819.

It doesn't matter

if Virginia ratified it in 1819, because some states joined the nation since 1810 when it was submitted. By 1818 the required number of states to ratify the amendment was already 16, with Virginia it would have been only at 13.
The debunking site cites the 27th amendment as an example which was submitted for ratification 1789, and ratified in 1992 by 38 states (3/4 of the states at the time of last ratification).
I can't see why this principle shouldn't apply to the original 13th amendment. And honestly, it does seem logical.

Napolitano: "We need Ron Paul now!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3JNRTVI0Q

You should read through this,

You should read through this, it will answer a lot of questions: http://usa-the-republic.com/amendment_13/Demon%20of%20Discor...

That's not how it worked

That's not how it worked originally.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=03...

At the following link you will find that the Secretary of State, Adams, declared that it appeared to be ratified and that they were merely waiting on the ratification by Virginia, which came shortly afterward in March of 1819: http://www.amendment-13.org/va1819images/va19stdept1.jpg

Can you

copy the exact quote, I don't seem to find it. I read the bottom of the page and the next page.
I also doubt that the constitution worked differently at the time.

From the debunking site:
"New Hampshire ratified on December 9, 1812, raising the total number of ratifications to 12 out of the needed 14. But Indiana was admitted on December 11, 1816, raising the required number of ratifications to 15. Mississippi's admission on December 10, 1817, did not change the threshold, but Illinois's admission on December 3, 1818 raised the threshold to 16.

The extremist claim that these later states are not relevant, because an amendment only needs the support of three-fourths of the states in existence when it was submitted to the states. History reveals this claim to be specious - and this fact was known at the time the amendment was under consideration.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states on September 25, 1789, only 11 states were operating under the Constitution, so each amendment required 9 ratifications to become part of the Constitution. But North Carolina ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island on May 29, 1790, raising the number of states required to 10, and Vermont joined the Union on March 4, 1791, raising the number of states required to 11. (See Wagman at 41) The official notice of ratification was not issued by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson until after notices of ratification had been received from 11 states. (See Schwartz at 1202-03)

If the admission of North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont had not changed the amendment equation, the original First Amendment (dealing with the apportionment of the House of Representatives) would be part of the Constitution, because ten states ratified it. Similarly, the 27th Amendment would not have required 38 ratifications to become part of the Constitution, but have become part of the Constitution when, in 1983, it received its ninth ratification.

In fact, if the admission of North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont had not changed the amendment equation, the Bill of Rights did not become part of the Constitution until 1939, because only 8 of the 11 states that ratified it in the 19th century were operating under the Constitution when the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states (to celebarte the 150th anniversary of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ratified the first ten amendments in 1939).

In addition, the extremist claim that Constitutional requirements were different in the early 19th century because new states were frequently admitted to the Union is based on incorrect factual premises, as well as being without any theoretical support. After the admission of Kentucky on June 1, 1792, only four news states were admitted in the following 25 years (Tennessee, 1796; Ohio, 1803; Louisiana, 1812; Indiana, 1816); the late 18th and early 19th century was actually, statewise, a slow period of growth for the Union."

Napolitano: "We need Ron Paul now!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3JNRTVI0Q

The Constitution doesn't work

The Constitution doesn't work at all. It is the People that follow and execute it. What DC is doing today isn't in the Constitution either.

Read the Demon is Discord. The link I posted.

You may want to research the illegal/unconstitutional passage of the 14th Amendment and the non-ratification of the 17th.

What about

the quote, you said there was a quote from Adams proving something, can't find it.

I'm not getting into a general debate about the constitution here, only the 13th amendment, and what the debunking site says.

How do you counter this:
"If the admission of North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont had not changed the amendment equation, the original First Amendment (dealing with the apportionment of the House of Representatives) would be part of the Constitution, because ten states ratified it."

At this point I'm not interested in the illegal passage of other amendments, let's stick to the questions about this one, because it is what peaked my interest.
And the questions are not answered.

Napolitano: "We need Ron Paul now!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3JNRTVI0Q

Read the Demon in

Read the Demon in Discord.

When you read through the Statute at Large you will see that they were waiting on Virginia, which they expected would and did ratify.

This is not a logical

answer. You simply refuse to deal with the examples I posted.
Why isn't the original First Amendment (dealing with the apportionment of the House of Representatives) part of the Bill of Rights, ten states ratified it. Only 9 were needed according to the theory you put forward.

I will dig into the Demon Discord tomorrow.

Napolitano: "We need Ron Paul now!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3JNRTVI0Q

Legalese is a twisted language and the Constitution a twisted

document.

You can't straighten these things out, smile.

We must try something that has never been proven to NOT work.

Voting, Lobbying, Open War, and Lawn Signs have all proven to NOT WORK.
---as much fun as lawn signs were, we must face facts!

Community-Economics has never been tried we should begin here.