Why Some Republicans Want to 'Restore' the 13th Amendment

Why Some Republicans Want to 'Restore' the 13th Amendment

www.newsweek.com

If there is an aspect of the human condition that is unaddressed by the platform of the Republican Party of Iowa, adopted last month at the state convention in Des Moines, you’d have to look awfully hard to find it. Its 387 enumerated planks and principles range widely over politics, culture, and economics, from sweeping statements of belief (“America is good”) to the fine nuances of agricultural policy (“We support the definition of manure as natural fertilizer”) and touching on the mythical “North American Union” (against) and the gold standard (for). Even so, it’s a little s

(visit the link for the full news article)

The conspiracy of the 13th Amendment is still alive and well in 2010, in this article it describes a move in Iowa to put the original 13th back on the table.

While no serious moves have been made in this direction, the article does give a quick reading history of the Amendment, the historical context of why it was considered, and how the War of 1812 most likely shelved it.

Anyways, I know there are quite a few members interested in the original 13th, so I wanted to post this for their perusal.

Enjoy!

www.newsweek.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Could this 13th amendment be used to cripple the banks and take the FED out?
I'm too lazy to dig any deeper and I am sure that some ATS'er knows the details

Aahhh... could you enlighten me as to this mysterious "thirteenth amendment" and the difference between that one and the thirteenth amendment in practice now? The abolition of slavery?

reply to post by shiman

Originally posted by shiman
Aahhh... could you enlighten me as to this mysterious "thirteenth amendment" and the difference between that one and the thirteenth amendment in practice now? The abolition of slavery?

If you read the source material that JacKatMtn posted, you will have your answer.

This is a very interesting topic and quite a conspiracy in and of itself of how the Original 13th Amendment was quietly rewritten in the aftermath of the Civil War and all but obscured to history, save a few surviving copies of the original version stored in State Houses.

My understanding is that the Original 13th Amendment bars anyone who holds a title of nobility from holding an elected public office in the United States.

For those who are unaware Lawyers and Attorneys are often bestowed with a title of Esquire which is one step below a Knight on the nobility chart.

This would effectively bar and prohibit Attorneys and Lawyers from running for office, and a system that has become overly litigious with Attorneys and Lawyers, prodigiously crafting and passing laws and codes that simply complicate the laws and codes and increase the need for an Attorney and increasing their revenue stream and power in the process.

I would like to see the original 13th Amendment brought back and return the law making process to the citizens instead of officers of the court.

This will make for simpler laws and rules, and far fewer of them and less government control and oversight over what has become far too many aspects of the American experience.

Restoring the Original 13th Amendment would go along way towards righting the nation’s course.

Those who practice law, should not be the ones making the law. Those who are already officers of the Court and have an oath to it, which is a separate branch of government, should not be representing the people and making decisions and laws for them in the legislative branch as it is a clear violation in the separation of powers, between the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government, and demonstrably erodes the checks and balances meant to prohibit one branch from gaining the bulk of power and control.

Great post, starred and flagged.

Originally posted by darkelf
reply to post by shiman

 

Originally posted by shiman
Aahhh... could you enlighten me as to this mysterious "thirteenth amendment" and the difference between that one and the thirteenth amendment in practice now? The abolition of slavery?

If you read the source material that JacKatMtn posted, you will have your answer.

Well, i did read the source material. but the poster underneath your post cleared it up for me.

reply to post by shiman


My appologies shiman, too often I expect others to have the same level of reading comprehension I have and that is unfair.

Sorry, this is preposterous. Even if this so called amendment was reintroduced, they would simply stop giving titles like this. And we all know that the true meaning of this amendment does not apply today as lawyers are not truly regarded as royalty...come on.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Sorry, this is preposterous. Even if this so called amendment was reintroduced, they would simply stop giving titles like this. And we all know that the true meaning of this amendment does not apply today as lawyers are not truly regarded as royalty...come on.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Bringing back the original 13th is nothing more than a pipe dream at this point though. However there was one quote in that article that rubbed me the wrong way: "But they could be playing with fire. 'We’re in a constitutional silly season,' says Bernstein, 'and whether you are of the left or the right, if you take the Constitution seriously, it’s very troubling.'”
So if we happen to take the Constitution seriously, that is cause for concern? I understand the position that some take about it being a living document and re-interpret from time to time. I don't agree with that point of view but I understand it. But to essentially be saying something to the effect of "the Constitution is a joke and if you believe in it you are a fool." is kind of insulting and makes me wonder and hope what this guy does for a living and hoping that he doesn't teach that kind of thing in school anywhere.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by shiman]

reply to post by djvexd


Your wish will hopefully soon be granted. This is from newsweek, which should be renamed newspeak in honor of George Orwell prior to it going out of business. This rag is not worthy of bird cage lining. These are the communist geniuses who published an article calling for the end to capitalism. No doubt they would replace with a system wherein they were in charge. I get enraged whenever I am exposed to their drivel. It's a shame there are so many willing shills in the media, to promote oligarchy propaganda.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


* Abraham Lincoln was Elected in to presidency in 1861.
* The 13th amendment was changed after he was in office.
* Abraham Lincoln was a Lawyer.

If this original 13th amendment was to keep lawyers and law practitioners from becoming president, then Abraham Lincoln, arguably one of the best Presidents this country have ever had, would have never been allowed to become president, since his election happened BEFORE the new 13th amendment was in place.

Presidents preceding Lincoln that were also Lawyers were:

James Buchanan, Franklin Peirce, Millard Fillmore, James K Polk, John Tyler, Martin Van Buren, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

For those of you keeping count, that leaves 3 presidents before Lincoln that were not lawyers.

Somehow I do not believe keeping lawyers out of the presidency was either in the letter or the spirit of that amendment.

[Edited: Added a specific reply-to]

[edit on 7/29/2010 by Sararainmaker]

reply to post by Sararainmaker


Yes, but did Lincoln have an Esquire title? That is the true prequalifying distinction.

Let us get back to Lincoln in a moment after we do a little real history that chances are someone who would proffer Lincoln as arguably one of the best presidents is completely unaware of.

At the founding of the nation the Treaty of Paris (which if you ever read it is going to leave you scratching your head as to whether the colonial revolutionaries won the war or not, because the treaty was entirely dictated by the English King) left the young country saddled with some very staggering debts, as we couldn’t just steal the land through armed conflict. It had to be paid for to its actual owners which in large part is what the Treaty of Paris is about. However that was not made entirely clear through the news broadcasts of the day.

This left us saddled with the First United States Bank (owned by foreign Interests) as a conduit for that debt, and foreign agents manipulating the economy making it very hard to pay off that debt.

By the time the 20 year charter of the First United States Bank was ending, a number of politicians including a few but not limited to the founding fathers were alarmed at how the First United States Bank was affecting and afflicting the growth of the nation and sought to prevent the charter from being extended.

They temporarily won, with the Vice President of the United States settling the tie vote in the Senate to defeat the extension of the Charter. However a short time later new legislation resulted in the Second United States Bank.

Once again foreign control of the bank led to money speculation, and rampant inflation, and made the debt almost impossible to pay off.

When the War of 1812 was concluded with the U.S. ostensibly winning once again, and the English dictating the treaty once again, a number of the provisions of the Treaty of Paris were reinforced into the Treaty of Ghent and in the process revisited by at this point was almost an entirely new generation of politicians who like you had no idea the founders had agreed to such terms and obligations.

This led to many people at the time feeling that the founders who were all Masons and almost all Esquires, had conspired to deceive the people of the nation. Some of the more harmful portions of the Treaty to the United States had been sealed through Secret Committees of Congress that had ratified those select provisions, but astutely chose to keep them secret by sealing them, so the new nation’s illusion of victory and independence would not be sullied by them.

So there was a huge backlash against both Masons and anyone who had a noble title including Esquires in the aftermath of the War of 1812. Many Masonic lodges were abandoned and burned to the ground, and it was during that time of heightened tension and concern that led to the original 13th Amendment being added, barring anyone of noble title from serving in an elected office.

Templar law, which is the basis of the legal system, was something being practiced by Masons and most Masons who were attorneys were Esquires as a result of that.

Non Masons practicing law, (there was no Bar Exam in those days and you could claim to be an attorney simply by arguing the law in courts) were typically not Esquires.

It is interesting to note that Andrew Jackson the biggest opponent of the First and Second United States Bank tried very hard to pay off the national debt to the European Creditors who still held and in fact still hold real title to the lands of the original 13 colonies and much of the subsequent incorporated territory and states too. In 1821 he was within 20,000.00 of having the debt paid off before the Second United States Bank manipulated another period of Hyper Inflation.

The closest we ever actually came to being a free and independent nation was in 1821 when the debt was down to just 20,000.00.

Much of our early history has been glossed over and obscured including the fact that the Southern States by this time had already tried to secede, not because of Slavery but because of economic manipulation in the North East who’s principal oligarchs were all in bed with the European Bankers and money cartels, and assisting them in the economic manipulation.

Andrew Jackson arguably our only honest and genuinely concerned President successfully managed to get them not to leave the Union in an historic address to a joint session of Congress where he argued that by them leaving would cause irreparable harm to the remaining states.

Jackson who was also a lawyer unlike Lincoln was able to use his gift of gab to keep the Union together where Lincoln had no such persuasive oratory ability or trust and faith placed in him and relied instead on guns and bullets to butcher the citizens into submission to the Union.

Lincoln’s crimes and many were considered crimes even within the Union included illegally declaring a rump congress back in session prohibiting legislatures from working out the crisis.

Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus the most fundamental protection within the law since the Magna Carter.

Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for openly defying many of his constitution destroying actions and had that carried out by the Army, turning the nation into a military dictatorship in the process.

Lincoln granted inroads to the religious allowing God to merge more with the Government as a means to entice Northern Christians to support the war, thus weakening forevermore the separation between church and state another huge violation of the Constitution.

Lincoln introduced the Greenback Dollar de facto instrument of debt currency as legal tender to pay for the slaughter of millions and millions of Americans, yet the money was so worthless the Government would not accept it as payment of tariffs and taxes even though it was the government that circulated it to pay it’s debt.

This system would in time be favored by the Third United States Bank which we know as the Federal Reserve and is also foreign owned.

Lincoln oversaw the creation of the Military Industrial Complex which has further led to the perennial bankrupting of the nation and made it impossible for it to ever gain it’s sovereignty through countless wars of empire to secure resources for American and European Corporations through raping them with military might.

There is so much from this period omitted from the History Books and rarely discussed, that would lead someone to claim that the nation’s worst President, a true Dictator by any definition including the New York Times of the day, could somehow be our best President.

The United States of America is still carved up into military government districts to this day as part of Lincoln’s legacy and the official military occupation of the South did not end until 1978, when Congress finally voted to end military occupation in the aftermath of desegregation.

The country you imagine you live in through text books is nothing like that at all through the treaties and laws, debts and contracts that actually define it.

None of this might be the case if not for the Military Corporate Dictatorship Lincoln instituted.

We are 13 trillion dollars in debt and fighting two wars where our sons and daughters are little more than security guards for oil companies, mining companies, pipelines, and drug dealers.

How much longer do you think the people of this nation can and should cling to these dogmas and illusions, while we have over 600,000 laws on the books that regulate every aspect of your existence and over 50% of what you earn is taxed by various state, federal and local entities and mandatory insurances that protect them?

ATS really is a great place to deny Ignorance through learning for those who want too.

Thanks.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by djvexd

 

:snip: This rag is not worthy of bird cage lining. These are the communist geniuses who published an article calling for the end to capitalism. No doubt they would replace with a system wherein they were in charge. I get enraged whenever I am exposed to their drivel. It's a shame there are so many willing shills in the media, to promote oligarchy propaganda.

I have to agree with the "communist geniuses" although seeing the inherent flaw of capitalism I hardly think is an automatic qualification for being communist.
We are in a financial decline due to a very pure form of corporate capitalism. In which all human needs or conditions are subordinate to profit.
I think that some hybrid of capitalism and socialism that eliminates the corporate entity is one way of Improving the flawed and cancerous form of capitalism consuming the planet.
N.

Sorry, but most lawyers with Esquire after their name weren't granted such title by the King of England. The original 13 amendment seemed designed to prevent anyone holding a title of nobility as granted from a foreign power.

American-born Lawyers who attend a law school and earn or adopt the title "esquire" have no allegiance to England any more than any other US citizen. Claiming that because they are a lawyer means that can't run for public office seems a serious infringement on their rights.

From Webster's definition: Esquire: "An unofficial title of respect, having no precise significance, it is used to denote a high but indeterminate social status."

The term Esquire originated in England, but has long lost any such "nobility" reference, it's an adopted term in American parlance.

This revival of the original 13 amendment language seems pointless.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Blackmarketeer]

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Actually that is all ambiguous assumption. Primarily because it discounts two important aspects, the first being our actual contractual agreements with England and the Holy Roman and Roman Empires, if you have not specifically read the Treaty of Paris, and the Treaty of Ghent ending the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812, then you would be entirely unaware of the reality of these.

Two is at the time of the 13th Amendment it is clear that Attorneys with the title Esquire were still or had those titles bestowed on them through England.

Additionally you do in fact have to go with the oldest, not the most recent definition of the word to understand it’s true legal context, as the oldest definition in legal parlance and terms is what defines and establishes precedent.

None of these things withstanding, we still find a very troubling matter of one of the original 13 Amendments to the constitution of the United States being quietly rewritten and it’s original context and meaning purposefully obscured from History.

That is a conspiracy all in and of it self, and yes, while many Jews in Germany were quick to dismiss anything might be amiss as they were loaded into cattle cars to the Labor camps, those routine denials, did not do anything to overcome the underlying sinister reality of what was really transpiring.

So while you might be quick to dismiss the circumstances and the content, and the meaning and the effect, the fact that you are just now hearing about this today is something that might very well trouble anyone.

You didn’t learn about the original 13th Amendment in School, you didn’t learn it’s original content in school, you weren’t told the 13th Amendment as it stands today was a rewritten amendment in school, and you might want to ask yourself why that is????

Just saying!

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Further you fail to consider that having attorneys who have an oath of office to the Courts, a separate branch of Government meant to be separate from the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch could possibly be a good thing, then when they serve as lawmakers in the Legislative Branch or Executive in the Executive Branch when they have an overriding oat of office to another branch!

Now your separated powers are no longer separated and that is in clear violation of the constitution.

This one issue glaringly displays the depths of the American lie.

The fact that the one amendment meant to address that in part was suppressed and then rewritten and all but obscured from history should be telling everyone something.

Even those who live in England!

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

This revival of the original 13 amendment language seems pointless.

Right.

The entire point seems to be to embarrass Obama (or perhaps even attempt to remove his citizenship).

There are, of course, other implications of Thirteenthism, such as ensuring that the United States never again suffers the humiliation of having a president win the Nobel Peace Prize. That was just what the Iowa Republicans had in mind, according to Plogmann, who wrote in an e-mail that the plank “was meant to make a statement about the delegates’ opinion about Mr. Obama receiving the prize.” (Presumably they didn’t mind if, in the process, they were also making a statement about any American scientist or writer unlucky enough to win a Nobel.) Unfortunately for them, the Department of Justice looked into whether Obama needed Congressional approval to accept the Nobel under the existing emoluments clause, and based on the meaning of “foreign state” (which would not cover the Nobel Prize Committee) concluded that he did not.

From the OPs article


Stay classy, Republicans.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by drwizardphd]