It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
he lower case u in united was Captialized to "United"
The Real Thirteenth Amendment, shown above, was ratified March 12, 1819 with the vote of the Virginia General Assembly to publish the Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia with this article of amendment included in the Constitution of the United States, and thus it became an integral part of the Constitution for the United States of America. This amendment added a heavy penalty, not included in the original exclusion of Titles of Nobility provided in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honour, or receiving any emolument, other than their legitimate earnings, under any guise from external sources, 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 them, or either of them." 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record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently "disappeared", never repealed, during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and the presently acknowledged Thirteenth Amendment was substituted.
In August 1991, an extremist small-press magazine entitled AntiShyster
> published a series of articles by David Dodge,(21) who claimed to have
> discovered that TONA in fact had been ratified and later suppressed.(22)
> Dodge's articles have found a ready audience in many extremist
> organizations,(23) and have found their way onto the Internet, where they
> are available from world wide web sites, along with additional commentary
> and information from TONA proponents.(24) Following Dodge, TONA proponents
> put forward an assortment of "constitutional nonsense," such as the claim
> that the amendment would exclude lawyers ("esquires") from public
> office.(25) Some even use TONA to justify "sentencing" state officials to
> death or murdering police officers.(26)
> In 1993, David Dodge and other extremists requested that the Acting
> Archivist of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
> certify that TONA had become part of the Constitution.(77) The Acting
> General Counsel, Christopher M. Runkel, concluded that NARA had no
> authority to certify that TONA had become part of the Constitution.(78)
> First, he concluded that the authority of NARA to certify an amendment
> under 1 U.S.C. 106b(79) was limited to situations in which NARA had
> received "official notification" from at least three-quarters of the
> states then in existence.(80) Second, Runkel concluded that NARA lacked
> the authority to determine whether, as a matter of law, TONA actually had
> become part of the Constitution.(81) NARA's authority is limited to
> determining whether sufficient notices of ratification have been received
> from the states, and does not extend to an amendment's validity.(82) ucla.edu
The Titles of Nobility Amendment does not have an illustrious history. The reasons for its proposal are obscure; what we know of them suggests partisan politics or xenophobia, neither an admirable nor worthy motive for amending the Constitution. The amendment's history is likewise obscure; scholars have almost universally failed to portray it accurately, amplifying the confusion about the amendment. Today, it is virtually forgotten, meriting at most a few lines in even the most detailed tomes on the Constitution.
If the amendment had remained a footnote to history, its obscurity might not be of great significance. But even before the 1990s, the amendment carried two important messages: that concern about divisions in society in the United States is a historic problem, and that the legal community, both in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, has not invested sufficient effort into accurately communicating the law to the profession, as well as to the public. Further, these messages now have manifested themselves in a new, disturbing guise: that of extremists who have taken advantage of the amendment's obscure history to mislead the public as to its validity and purpose, driven by their anti-lawyer agenda and alienation.(203)
These misrepresentations should be taken seriously and countered, both for the good of the profession and of the public. Too often, legal scholarship has been and continues to be guilty of "scholarly defects of the most elementary kind."(204) Law cannot have--and does not deserve--the public trust if the law is itself untrustworthy.(205) But past failures should not lead lawyers to withdraw from the field and leave it to extremists. One should remember that the oft-misquoted line from Shakespeare, "[t]he first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,"(206) actually speaks to the vital role that lawyers historically have played in society; only if all of the King's learned advisors were vanquished would rebels be able to install a tyrant.(207) If there is any nobility in being a lawyer, it is because of the role and responsibility of protecting society from those who seek to create and exploit divisions within it.
There are, of course, also arguments against reinvigorating the nobility clauses.(197) Although Delgado finds them unpersuasive, he notes that one could argue that antinobility analysis could be used to strike down practically every governmental action or program; that it would require affirmative obligations on behalf of the poor; and that it could not be effectuated by courts or any other branch of government.
Originally posted by endisnighe
Tell me SD, what are your views on this conclusion?
Trying to use xenophobia fears as the basis of the whole paper the link you gave us.
I wonder WHY that is?