It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mid 1800's, someone defaced our Constitution

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:21 AM
the lower case u in united was Captialized to "United"
and we had a Article 13, to which disappeared without Repeal.

The Missing 13th Amendment
David M. Dodge, Researcher, Date 08/01/91

In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.

By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States.

Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from the U.S. Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.

The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues:

What does the Amendment mean? and,
Was the Amendment ratified?
Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance.

MEANING of the 13th Amendment
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"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."
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure; unimportant. The references to "nobility," "honour," "emperor," "king," and "prince," lead us to dismiss this Amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. The U.S. modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, make anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance:

First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787);
Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:22 AM
So does this mean Obama can't accept any presents or gifts? I am thinking of the around 10 million swedish kroner included with the nobel peace prize.

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by Duvant

it means, he is illegal... as I have said haundreds of times and everyone keeps calling me a birther. but just because it is real, well this is reality...
there is a difference. Unfortunately people are stupid. they think food stamps are free.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:38 AM
Are you sure? I saw that Nicholas Cage film and he never mentioned any of this.

Besides, haven't some American politicians or big businessmen received British titles over the last couple of decades?

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:51 AM
Yes, they have... I wonder who they work for you and me or the Queen of England or Rothchild - think about it... the CIA, FBI, SS, NSA, IRS - all seem to harm us, or at best not working for our benefit, as we might think. since this is a corporation then you can chart it like a stock. and well - we are there ... we are the top dog on the block. we have only one direction in which to go, down...
after all they have installed a Corporation as a form of Government. "True Fascism" as signified by the Facse's on each side of the US Flag in the U.S. House of Representatives, I dont have a clue as to how long they have been there but my guess would be a few years.

after watching them in action and viewing the results, I have picked up on some of there key words... like protecting the taxpayer ususally means stick them with the bill.. ha ha things like that...

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by Anti-Evil

he lower case u in united was Captialized to "United"

This I don't feel is a big deal. When the Constitution was written, there were very few grammar rules. Capitalization was random and spellings of words were inconsistent. Eventually, this changed. At one point, it was recognized that "United States" was the name of the country, not just "States". Thus, as the name of the country, united would have to be capitalized, because it is a proper noun, becoming "United States".

As to the "lost" amendment, I think that it is highly interesting. I read about this a few months ago. I even saw pictures of books published before the War of 1812 that had this amendment therein! Again, very interesting.

I was listening to a refeed of Coast to Coast AM (I think that's what it was) yesterday and the guest was talking about how some of the founding fathers were really into the high levels of masonry, that many politicians today still are, and have sworn allegiances to various masonic institutions/entities. If that is all true, and if this amendment really existed and was ratified, it's quite interesting how it was just "lost" during the War of 1812. This amendment being lost would make it really easy for people behind the scenes to do their dirty work without worrying about losing their power status in the US. Know what I mean?

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:19 AM
I had to bump this thread...

I've been reading, but haven't confirmed yet that the orginal 13th amendment forbid bankers and lawyers from holding government positions.

During the turmoil of the civil war they removed the 13th amendment and replaced it with the current.

Here is a link:

[edit on 17/5/10 by xstealth]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:48 AM
Here is an excellent link to this conspiracy.

The Real Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -
Titles of Nobility and Honour

Used this in several threads.

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.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

and my read of things, it was never repealled - so, it's still LAW of the Land. which is enforcible ... ??? US MARSHALLS>>> ??? Masterbaiter at ARMS ... who is the arresting body.... ???

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by Anti-Evil

Could you imagine removing all the damn LAWYERS?!

That would be the best thing to EVER happen. Boot their asses out of the country after removing them from office.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:05 PM
You do know, with the power of the internet
we can effect LAW, there are around 350million people of voting age
plus or minus 100million, we would have to have a personal yea or nay.
from every citizen or overwhelming majority - who's vote is verifiable.
so, I basically, want to create a E GOV web site so we can actually engage the population into these issues and which would open up Politics to verifiable opinion and populations poll vote on issues.
where citizens can line up and debate the issues independant of Congress and HOR's... and could also do the same for state governments all the way down to local issues... great idea... but NO $$$.. to do it...
google refuses to even reply to my software - webware these days - I guess. I got drawned out with their success...

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:13 PM
Erm ...

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)

The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility

[edit on 17 May 2010 by schrodingers dog]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:38 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

It is funny you posted that link. I read through that before.

Take a look at the conclusion.

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.

Hell, this could come straight from a Cass Sunstein breakdown.

Yes, lawyers a noble lot. Proven that they can lie directly in court and be cleared of such conduct.

Ever hear of the part of becoming a lawyer, that they have to argue that the government has no responsibility to the citizens of the State?

Tell me SD, what are your views on this conclusion?

Also the fact that TONA is referenced many times in SC cases?

What I find HIGHLY important to the discussion IS THIS LITTLE SNIPPET!

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.

So, in my conclusion, the whole PURPOSE of the TONA was to stop the very problems that we see today. The OVER REACHING federal government into the affairs of everyone.

Hmmm. Conspiracies from way back in the early 1800's.

Trying to use xenophobia fears as the basis of the whole paper the link you gave us.

I wonder WHY that is?

[edit on 5/17/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:44 PM

Originally posted by endisnighe

Tell me SD, what are your views on this conclusion?

I have no views on this issue as I am not a constitutional scholar nor do I have the mental faculties to wrap all this around my head. I simply looked into the subject of the OP out of interest and curiosity and thought that provenance and a qualified opinion (not mine) would add to the discussion.

Trying to use xenophobia fears as the basis of the whole paper the link you gave us.

I wonder WHY that is?

I honestly have no idea to what you are referring to.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:36 PM
I have posted on this before, in other forums. A real big pet peeve of mine, this. How many politicians are lawyers? All of them. Let me see, altering a historic and sacred document, perpetrating a conspiracy to cover up a crime of Treason against the united States of America....all concerned should hang.

Here is the rest of this sad tale...

Lawyer's Secret Oath

We have been bought, packaged, and sold on the open market, while the Banking Cartel gets richer and richer every day. guess who pays them, friend? You do! Remember this next time you think you need to call a lawyer.....

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:59 PM
The initial point was to prevent BAR association members (Lawyers) from holding public office. A member of the BAR holds the title of "Esquire" and their oath is allegiance to the Queen of England. The BAR being Vatican Templar Crown Court. It is an allegiance to foreign powers. Cardinals, Bishops, Priests of the Catholic Church also hold allegiance to foreign powers.

The 13th Amendment was replaced by the US Citizen amendment. AKA labeled as the anti-slavery amendment. Which basically created everyone as a corporate employee and slave of the USA corporation established in 1871. The British burning of the capital in 1814 was probably part of the preparations for the future Corporations. The Civil War was a fabrication to kill protestants, infuse Catholics into the country, traumatize the society, facilitate rationals and corruption of congress and instigate the corporate system. Most likely Robert E. Lee deliberately sent the southern troops to their slaughter at Gettysburg and elsewhere to facilitate the rational for surrender.

When the southern states ceded from the Union. Lincoln was powerless under the constitution. So, the constitution was put aside, war powers and later the corporate fiction was created. The constitution could not be abolished without the approval of the people. So it was set aside and replaced with the corporate system. The is exactly what the Restore America Plan is reversing. It is returning the uSA back to the original 13th amendment constitutional government. Ending property tax, income tax, traffic tickets, USA citizenship and restoring the country to a Republic form of government which recognizes the divine natural/common law sovereignty of the individual. The massive criminal profiteering with false crime will come to an end. Massive wealth will be returning to the people and great prosperity will return to the uSA along with individual freedom. Most of what passes as "Government" will gradually be dissolved. Invention and creativity will rain supreme. No more repressed technology for health, energy, etc.. Time will tell, but the goal is a noble one and the effort is underway.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by autowrench

Thanks for that link.

Lots to peruse. Link and all info into folder goes.

new topics


log in