Comment: Thank you both. And I do see the difference,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It was a penalty for violation (see in situ)

Thank you both. And I do see the difference,

that is, the Thirteenth Amendment WITH the penalty...

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, 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."

vs. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8...

"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."
---------------------------------

I think there's every reason to acknowledge the Thirteenth Amendment. It's an issue of national security and keeping government officials honest. Some further points & questions.

1. Still, even without a stated - and rather harsh - penalty, at the very least (according to Article I), TITLES ARE PROHIBITED. And yet that seems to have been ignored, e.g., re the title "Esquire." (It was pointed out in the you-tube clip that the B.A.R. in BAR Association actually stands for British Accreditation Registry, which is acknowledged elsewhere.)

2. Actually, I now see that there is another salient difference between the two: the AMENDMENT clarifies that the prohibitions (and penalty) apply to ALL CITIZENS re accepting a "present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince or foreign power." An "emolument" is any profit whatsoever.

3. So then wouldn't the Thirteenth Amendment PRECLUDE dual citizenship unless with the consent of Congress - including (you'd think!) those serving IN government positions, no less in the area of foreign affairs and appropriations, with obvious conflicts of interest. Indeed, "just" Article I prohibits emoluments for any "Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them" [the United States]. The whole POINT had to do with the potential INFLUENCE of foreign powers.

4. Also what about cases like General Motors, whose (American citizen) executives DO profit from a foreign power, being in business ventures WITH the Chinese government? See the first 3 min. of GM CEO's address in China. It explains who GM is doing business with, and you can hear the CEO himself say that GM is committed to working "in China, with China, and FOR China." If an American citizen is committed to working for a foreign nation, it's admitting the foreign power's "influence." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo

5. Some "light weekend reading" I have to look forward to re the Emolument Clause!
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_8.html
http://www.gemworld.com/usA--Original13thAmend.htm

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir