Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Original Thirteenth Amendment

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Bet most of you don't know there are 2 versions of the 13th Amendment.

The original which was quietly replaced, is in fact, the last legal Amendment.

Read on and be Educated...
www.usavsus.info...

www.barefootsworld.net...

The Original Thirteenth Amendment
Ratified March 12, 1819

The Founders held an intense disdain and distrust of "Nobility" as a result of a long history, during Colonial times, of abuses and excesses against the Rights of Man and the established Common Law and Constitutions by the "Nobility", and therefore placed in the new Constitution two injunctions against acceptance of Titles of Nobility or Honor or emoluments from external sources. The Revolutionary War for Independence was primarily waged to eliminate these abuses and excesses of the "Nobility" and the "Monied Classes" from the life of the Nation, recognizing the Equality of all men.

As there was no penalty attached to a title of nobility or honor in the Constitution as originally ratified, the Original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of "Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens.

As noted in the discussion in Article 1 of the Constitution, the original Thirteenth Amendment, was ratified in 1819, adding a heavy penalty upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honor, or emoluments from external powers by making that person "cease to be a citizen of the United States" and "incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under the United States". This Amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently deleted, never repealed, during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and the presently acknowledged Thirteenth Amendment was substituted. The original records of the original 13th amendment were thought to be destroyed at the time of the burning of the capitol during the War of 1812, but have since been found in the archives of the British Museum, the national archives and in the archives of several of the States and territories. The fact of its existence had been lost to memory until, by chance, researchers discovered in the public library at Belfast, Maine an 1825 copy of the U. S. Constitution. Subsequent research shows that it was in the records of the ratifying states and territories until 1876, the last to drop it from record was the Territory of Wyoming after 1876. The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment and the current 13th Amendment, on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition.

The 1876 Laws of Wyoming which similarly show the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment, the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), and the current 15th Amendment on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th, the current 14th amendment is omitted, and the current 15th Amendment is in proper place.

For further discussion and the history of the Original Thirteenth Amendment see "Demon of Discord, Ratification and Suppression of the Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Buchanan the day before Lincoln took office.

This amendment to the Constitution relating to slavery was sent to the states for ratification by the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Congress on March 2, 1861, when it passed the Senate, having previously passed the House on February 28, 1861. It is interesting to note in this connection that this and the ratified Anti-Slavery amendment of 1865 are the only resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution to have been signed by the President. The President's signature is considered unnecessary because of the constitutional provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress the proposal shall be submitted to the States for ratification.

The resolve to amend signed by President Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, read:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:

"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 Buchanan had signed a resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. It appears at 12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress. Two more State legislatures ratified it, beginning with Ohio on May 13, 1861, followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862.

But the onslaught of the Civil War taught that the Nation may be in even greater peril from the States than they ever were from the Nation. And so, after more than seventy years of national life, the people, by the presently acknowledged 13th Amendment and the two following, laid upon the States restrictions which a few years before would have been impossible. The Constitution had gone forty-six years (1819 - 1865) without an Amendment.

In the tumult of 1865, the original Thirteenth Amendment was removed from our Constitution. In a Congressional Resolve to amend dated December 5, 1864, approved and signed by President Lincoln, February 1, 1865, another Amendment numbered XIII (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. When, on January 13, 1865, a two-thirds vote was taken in the House of Representatives for proposing the currently presented 13th Amendment "in honor of the immortal and sublime event" the House adjourned. It was then presented to the States for ratification. Two months later, April 9, 1865, the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln was assassinated, dying on April 15th.

On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting and abolishing slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited acceptance of "titles of nobility" and "honors" and "emoluments", and dishonest politicians have been bought and bribed and have treasonously accepted graft from external sources ever since, with no thought of penalty.


[edit on 2/28/2009 by Hx3_1963]




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
There's a strange coincidence...

Lincoln signs it...abolished slavery (not...actually made all of us slaves...but that's another thread...)...takes away states rights...the number 13...April 15th...


US continues to be in a permanent state of national emergency since March 9, 1933, and possibly as far back as the Civil War
--Senate report 93-549 (1973)

On April 15, 1861,
President Lincoln reconvened Congress under the Executive branch by proclamation (number 1): "I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress."

Ceasar (President) is now in full control even over the Senate (Congress).

A Presidential dictatorship has been imposed on U.S. citizens. The sad thing is, "Most American people do not realize it yet."

The corporate government created in 1871 will continue to exist as long as:

"state of war" or "emergency" exists (War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terrorism, War on Iraq, etc.),

the President does not terminate "martial" or "emergency" powers by Executive Order or decree, or

the people do not resist submission and terminate by restoring lawful civil courts, processes and procedures under authority of the "inherent political powers" of the people.
---------------------------
The original Thirteenth Amendment (no title of nobility), approved by 13 of the 17 states March 12, 1819 and thereby ratified, is the last proper draft of a de jure Amendment but is not recognized by the corporate (de facto) UNITED STATES.

The original 13th Amendment prohibits "Esquires" (Attorneys) from holding positions of public office.

The Fourteenth Amendment for all intents and purposes does not exist. On March 28, 1861 Congress adjourned sine die and never has reconvened de jure.
www.scratchinpost.net...


Obama using Lincoln bible/theme...all these new bills trying to sneeking in more controls...

hhhmmm


[edit on 2/28/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I have read your post, and I have done a little googling myself, and I don't get it.

Why was this amendment suppressed? Is it because the european nobility got rid of it by paying people off or something?

I just don't get how or why this amendment disapeared. Once an amendment is ratified, it is the law of the land, and can only be overrulled by another amendment.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by finemanm
 


But the onslaught of the Civil War taught that the Nation may be in even greater peril from the States than they ever were from the Nation.

In other words...the District of Columbia, "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" feared for their power, knowing "the united states" had their own Constitutions.

A power grab...by elites/corporations/money changers/nobility...


The 1876 Laws of Wyoming which similarly show the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment, the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), and the current 15th Amendment on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th, the current 14th amendment is omitted, and the current 15th Amendment is in proper place.

Confusing huh? The Civil War scared the hell out of them...

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Hmmm.

Titles of Nobility Amendment


Long-standing misimpression

The misconception prevailed for decades that the TONA had in fact become part of the U.S. Constitution—indeed many printings of the Constitution during the 19th century erroneously referred to it as being the Thirteenth Amendment. Perhaps this misunderstanding could be traced to the mistaken belief that both chambers of South Carolina's legislature had acted favorably upon the TONA when, evidently, only one body had done so. Possibly, it can be attributed to the misapprehension that Virginia lawmakers had adopted the TONA, despite the long-standing belief that there was a lack of documentation that either chamber of Virginia's legislature ever even so much as considered the TONA.

That is not where the misunderstandings end. There is a further mistaken belief that the TONA was, at all stages, just one state's adoption shy of being incorporated into the federal Constitution.

When the TONA was offered by the Congress to the state legislatures on May 1, 1810, the approval of 13 of them would indeed have been required. However, with the addition of Louisiana into the Union on April 30, 1812, that threshold increased to 14 state approvals. Louisiana's statehood commenced after the Massachusetts ratification of the TONA, but prior to the New Hampshire ratification of it. Then, when Indiana was admitted on December 11, 1816, the bar was raised up to 15 approvals need to ratify the TONA. Although the admission of Mississippi on December 10, 1817, did not increase the numerical requirement, the entry of Illinois on December 3, 1818, did elevate that minimum to 16 state adoptions necessary for the TONA to be incorporated into the Constitution.

It should be clarified that the actual Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December of 1865 and abolished slavery uniformly throughout the United States.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right

Whereas it is my understanding that:

the common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people.

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the right to Life, Freedom and the right to sole ownership of both property and land, and;

equality before, not under, the law is paramount and mandatory, and;

Thomas Jefferson said: A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

That "every man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institution formed by his fellow men without his consent." Cruden v Neale 2 NC.338(1796) 2 S.E. 70

no law can never govern the conduct of people on the land, only those who work in a capacity of government officials and agents and employees in their lawful duty to protect the life, liberty and property, and;

the lawful functions of any government cannot infringe upon the freedom and rights granted to men and women by their creator, and;

A society is defined as a number of persons joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and;

A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law only within that society, and:

A by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and;

the United States of America is a federation of fifty artificial nation states, the government of each state bound by the Constitution for The United States of America, and;

The Constitution for The United States of America, and the public acts of all states and the federal government, established corporate legal entities called governments on the land known as the United States and the several States, and;

The Constitution of The United States of America is a document to which all public acts must abide, and;

the current acting federal government on the land commonly known of as the United States of America is a power de facto, is referred to as the United States, and has no authority over people, and;

The United States is a corporation as per public policy 29 USC 3002.

corporations are artificial legal entities that can contract with only with other legal entities by the hand of living agents, and only with full disclosure between the agents thereof, full disclosure of the definition of all words, the assumption that those definitions rest upon, and the implications that extend therefrom of all clauses of such contracts in order to claim authority, power or control over those contracting parties, and;

The Constitutions and public acts for The United States of America and the respective States do not bind nor extend to people on the land, only to artificial persons, and;

the Law Societies and Bar Associations of the United States and the respective states are the societies whose members create the statutes of the United States, therefore these statutes apply only to citizens of those societies, the artificial persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or those artificial persons whose trustee acts in his personal capacity as an employee of those societies, and;

The Constitution of The United States of America and it's public acts, the Constitutions and public acts of each of the respective states, and all de facto counterparts, apply only to citizens, residents, persons and the like - artificial persons representing the government officials, agents and employees of each level of governments, and;

a "person" "resident" or "citizen" of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights and all statutes, code, ordinances and by-laws of the United States and of all States and Municipalities refers to an artificial entity, and;

all law of the United States and respective States applies only to artificial persons, and those sworn to uphold these laws, and;

The United States and all governments and courts on the land commonly known of as United States of America are corporations, and have no authority over sovereign men and women on the land, and;

The US Code and State Codes, are commercial law governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, and;

for something to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States it must be an artificial person subject to the jurisdiction pursuant to the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America, and;

that the term 'citizen' as defined in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is the term used to denote the political status of the artificial entity of government employee, and;

A citizen is an artificial person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as per the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution for the United States, and is also subject to those corporate state entities which have contracted with the United States, and;

Please see the following link for the rest.
www.breakthematrix.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2/28/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Here's another nice read on Common Law vs Maritme Law and the Constitution...

Don't let the url get to ya...pretty informative...

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

:snip:

New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is, therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law 'operating orders' or 'ship's orders'; as, all bodies politic and corporate are make-believe ships in the Roman system.

The UNITED STATES is a corporation, and Congress is a 'body politic' - both being Roman style incorporations (make-believe ships) under the original creation/ownership of the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of the (still existent) Holy Roman Empire. All Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions; but, in fact, are 'ship's orders' of make-believe ships), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause. (In the US Constitution, it is the 'general welfare' clause). This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, or a designated officer (judge or Cabinet member) leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion. 'The CAPTAIN may deviate from ANY 'rules or regulations' when he DEEMS it necessary 'for the GOOD of the ship.' That is a basic maxim of the Law of the Sea, and totally within the 'common sense' realm of operating a ship relative to safety and profitability; however, it is devastating to the unalienable rights of an individual free will man or woman living upon the land.

Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a 'contract' in all of the British, and former British Empire. The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences. A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will. As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract. The defendant need only to continue with: "I do not accept your sentence." Or, where applicable: "I do not accept your offer of contract." The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court.

:snip:

We have a problem and we are here to analyze that problem. Why do the courts refuse to admit certain arguments and cites of the United States Constitution? And further, find some in contempt of court if they persist in doing so? Why is there so little justice in our courts today? Our problem is, we have been fighting the wrong thing -- playing the wrong ball game.

We have found that we are not in Common Law under the Constitution -- in fact, we're not in Equity under the Constitution -- we are in Maritime Law (the Law of International Commerce -- Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Military Law, and Prison or Warden Law).

Just what is this Law of Admiralty? Admiralty Law encompasses all controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize. Prize is that law dealing with war, and the spoils of war -- such as capture of ships, goods, materials, property -- both real and personal, etc.

Another way to understand admiralty law -- it is the command enforcement necessary to maintain the good order and discipline on a ship, especially as a ship was operated in the mid-1700's. As the availability of crewmembers was a finite problem in the middle of the ocean, the enforcement of ship law had more to do with getting wayward crewmembers back into a state of obedience and usefulness, rather than as the imposition of lawful punishments -- the latter being the purpose of law enforcement on the land.

Maritime Law is that system of law that particularly relates to commerce and navigation. Because of this fact, as you will see, you don't have to be on a ship in the middle of the sea to be under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction can attach merely because the subject matter falls within the scope of Maritime Law -- and, bills, notes, cheques and credits are within the scope of Maritime Law.

Admiralty Law grew and developed from the harsh realities and expedient measures required to survive at sea. It has very extensive jurisdiction of maritime cases, both civil and criminal. Because of its genesis, it contains a harsh set of rules and procedures where there is no right to trial by jury, no right to privacy, etc. In other words, there are no rights under this jurisdiction -- only privileges granted by the Captain of the maritime voyage.

For instance: in this jurisdiction there is no such thing as a right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal case -- the Captain can; however, if he wishes, grant you the privilege against self-incrimination. There's no such thing as a right to use your property on the public highways -- but the Captain may grant you the privilege to do so, if he so chooses. There is no such thing as a right to operate your own business -- only a privilege allowed as long as you perform according to the captain's regulations.



[edit on 3/16/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Wow my friend, this is an awsome thread. More people need to read this.

It appears you and I are in complete agreement that the Roman Empire is still totally in control?

This seems to make a total of two of us!

We don't have a plan yet what to do about this do we?

I smell a chance for a bust in a Museum here!

Amazing work you have done.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
star 4 U!

Yes, that makes 2 or 3 of us


It's all pretty plain if you follow the thread through the 2+ Millennium time frame...

And it appears Rome is about to fall again...

Seems we don't learn from history...



[edit on 4/12/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
star 4 U!

Yes, that makes 2 or 3 of us


It's all pretty plain if you follow the thread through the 2+ Millennium time frame...

And it appears Rome is about to fall again...

Seems we don't learn from history...



[edit on 4/12/2009 by Hx3_1963]


Oh no! I have been trying to convince people this a good thing! Temples to Bachus again, all night orgies, you can kill your wife and kids if they get on your nerves!

What makes you think it's actually in danger now my friend?

It seems on the surface everything is going in accordance with their plans?

Explain your thoughts please.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
A very informative article following up on the 14th Amendment controversy...

The End of the American Republic: the Shadow Government is Born
www.real-debt-elimination.com...

[edit on 5/23/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
star 4 U!

Yes, that makes 2 or 3 of us


It's all pretty plain if you follow the thread through the 2+ Millennium time frame...

And it appears Rome is about to fall again...

Seems we don't learn from history...



[edit on 4/12/2009 by Hx3_1963]


if you agree with keeping the original 13th amendment, how would you reconcile not only slavery being legal in any state that wished it to be, but any other laws that would impinge upon the rights of other people that were not implicitly spoken about in the constitution? we would end up with a nation of seperate states that had entirely different laws for each states citizens. one state could have legal weapons of mass destruction, child prostitution, drugs, gambling, slavery, no taxes on the rich, 90% taxes on the poor and middle class, and only white people allowed to live there. and all of this would fit into the strict reading of the constitution.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

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 whatsoever from any King, Prince, or foreign State. 69
www.barefootsworld.net...

69 "A wise jealousy of foreign influences in the affairs of government," says a writer on our Constitution, "will amply justify this provision."

A provision in almost the same words was in the first section of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. It permitted persons holding office under a State to accept, with the assent of Congress, the objectionable gifts or distinctions; but the constitutions of at least two of the States at that time forbade them altogether. Of course, a republic born of the misrule of a monarchy should not grant titles of nobility. The institution called nobility had possessed itself of most of the posts of trust and honor to the hopeless exclusion of the rest of the people, and by prestige and by the favoritism of the government of which it was so large a part it had gained the greater share of the lands and other wealth of England and of the continental countries.

A gift from the King of France to our ambassador during the Revolution is said to have suggested this provision. "Any present . . . of any kind whatever" was said by the Attorney General's office in 1902 to prevent the acceptance of photographs from Prince Henry of Prussia, brother of the emperor of Germany, by civil and military officers of the United States. But while Jefferson was President he accepted (1806) from Alexander I of Russia a bust of that Emperor, which he said would be "one of the most valued ornaments of the retreat I am preparing for myself at my native home." He said that he had laid it down as a law of his official conduct not to accept anything but books, pamphlets, or other things of minor value; but his "particular esteem" for the Emperor "places his image in my mind above the scope of the law."

This prohibition of the granting of titles of nobility by the Nation is repeated 72 as to the States in the first clause of the next section.

By the charter issued to Lord Baltimore in 1632 he was authorized to grant titles of nobility in Maryland. A claim to like authority was made under one or two other colonial charters.

In 1810 Congress proposed an amendment, the original Thirteenth amendment, to add a heavy penalty to this clause by this wording,

"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 office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

It was thought, at least in the 20th century, that the proposed amendment lacked the necessary ratifying votes. Subsequent research of recent date (1984 continuing to now, 2009) show that the proposed amendment was indeed properly ratified, the State Department WAS notified and was on the books and records of the various States until at least 1876. From 1810 to 1812, twelve states ratified this amendment. The War of 1812 destroyed the library of Congress and these documents were thought destroyed, but in 1994 it was discovered they still exist. After receipt of an inquiry from President James Monroe and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in 1818, Virginia confirmed the ratification March 12, 1819 with the act authorizing the publishing of the VA Revised Code in 1819. The Revised Code contained the Constitution -- including the original Thirteenth Amendment as proposed to the states for ratification in 1810, which the Virginia House and Senate quite propery had done May 1, 1810

The Virginia legislature subsequently authorized the distribution of the Revised Code of 1819 -- with ten copies designated for the executive branch of Virginia, five copies for the Clerk of the general assembly, and four copies for the Secretary of State of the United States, received not later than 29 August 1821; one copy each for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and President James Monroe; one copy each for the federal Senate, House, and Library of Congress, and one copy for every judge in the courts of the United States in Virginia. Thus was the Federal government notified of the ratification by Virginia. By February of 1820, sufficient copies of the Revised Code had been printed to make it available for public sale, and it was advertised as such in a Richmond newspaper. Research conducted on this subject indicates that at least six or seven other Virginia newspapers also carried advertisements for the new Code.

Article V of the Constitution does not stipulate that the States, having ratified or rejected a constitutional amendment, be required to report their actions in any one particular way. Therefore, under the Tenth Amendment, each State is left free to publish the actions of its legislative bodies in any manner whatsoever. Federal law as of 1818, and as amended in 1820, requires that the Secretary of State give public notice of such ratifications as may be reported by the States. That law cannot and does not impair the rights of the States to issue their notices in any manner that their lawfully elected representatives deem proper. Indeed, the Revised Code of 1819 was, and is, the fulfillment of a contract made between those in government and those who have given their consent to be governed, in this case the free men of Virginia.

Evidence has been found that only 10 States may have been required to ratify in 1812, not 13, as two of the States, Connecticut and Rhode Island, did not become full States until 1818 and 1842 respectively, as they were still operating under their original charters and had not instituted a proper State constitution as required by the Constitution until these dates. However, the proposed Thirteenth Amendment was properly ratified with the publishing of the Virginia statutes in 1819. Research has proven that this amendment was unlawfully deleted from the Constitution of the United States of America in random years until 1876 without legislation from any state, or congressional action on the national level.

Avenues are being sought to reinstate this original and lawful Thirteenth Amendment as it was never repealed, but only deleted by outright fraud. Because of this fraud and others, the members of the judiciary and law professions now control all three branches of government. Jefferson warned of this. It is thought that one effect of this original Thirteenth Amendment would have precluded any member of the Bar Associations from citizenship and the ability of holding any office under the Constitution of the United States. If the original Thirteenth Amendment were reinstated, as members of the Bar Associations retain a title of honor, i.e. "Esquire", setting them apart from the common man, or as possessed of special privileges or immunities before the courts and in government not available to the common man, they would therefore be excluded from citizenship and eligibility to office in government. There is some doubt in this, however.

The main effect that restoration and implementation of the original Thirteenth Amendment would have in these times in the 21st Century would be the heavy penalty to the members of the judiciary, politicians, and the political "war chests" which are on the "take" of emoluments from the lobbyists of the foreign nations, foreign special interest groups, and foreign/multinational corporations.

"They saw all the consequences in the principle and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." -- James Madison





new topics




 
10

log in

join