The "Missing" 13th Amendment
Even though the Constitution for the United States of America already had provisions against granting titles of nobility -
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. - Constitution for the United States of America, Article I, Section 9:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. - Constitution for the United States of America Article I, Section. 10.
These two sections are echoing a similar provision contained in the Articles of Confederation.
No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.- Articles of Confederation: Article VI.
Why would our Founding Fathers be so intent on restricting the use of Titles of Nobility?
Quite simple -- Our Declaration of Independence declares all men to be equal.
The granting of Titles of Nobility creates a superior class of Citizens.
Generally, if someone has a Title of Nobility they join cliques and private groups that shun those they consider to be of lesser quality than themselves.
Our Founding Fathers knew that many people were very unhappy about being cut off from the pomp and pageantry of England. It was these people, many of whom already held titles and positions of authority under the Crown, that the ban was aimed at.
If we allow people to claim honors, titles, and privileges it will not be very long before the equality of all men is destroyed and we start on the path to having those who have the money, the power, and the position, in short those who consider themselves to be the elite, make slaves and servants out of the rest of us.
Why, if we already had provisions against the Titles of Nobility would our Congress decide that we needed an Amendment to our Constitution?
Congress proposed a Title of Nobility Amendment in 1789 which did not pass. Congress tried again in 1810. This time it passed through Congress and was submitted to the States for ratification.
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. - True 13th Amendment
A considerable controversy has arisen concerning whether or not the Amendment was ratified.
Newly located documents verify the ratification was properly done.
For a detailed chronology of the events surrounding the fraudulent removal of the true 13th Amendment click here.
In order to remove the valid Amendment the people have to have the opportunity to remove it, and they must be in a position of power so they can manipulate the records and deceive the public. They must also have something to gain, or they must be afraid the Amendment will take something away from them.
Is there a group that fits the requirements?
Who would have the opportunity to remove the Amendment?
Only the politicians and those in government service - our public servants.
This group is also in a position of power to where they control what goes into the records and what does not get recorded.
Do they have something to gain?
These are the people who have served as Ambassadors to European Nations and have ties and friendships. These are the people who hold Titles of Nobility and positions of influence with the Kings and Queens of Europe.
Many of these people fought hard for the American Independence not for the Liberty and Freedom, but because they saw a chance to increase their power and influence among their foriegn friends. These people were not bothered by the tea tax, or the other taxes that were imposed - they had large plantations and farms and raised most of what they needed and used.
It was the less affluent people who had to rely on imports of goods in order to live that were bothered by the taxes. But these people had no power, opportunity, or even ability to create a new Republic. It took the educated and the wealthy to put it all together so it would work.
This is not to say that all of the Founding Fathers were not honest in their efforts and their remarks. It only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole bushel.
The Constitution does not mention attorney, or lawyer, because it presumed that only residency and age would be the requirements to hold any of the offices created under the Constitution.
In fact, there is a little mentioned clause that precludes attorneys and lawyers from serving in many government offices.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office - Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 2.
Attorneys and lawyers are officers of the court. As such they take an Oath of Office concerning their activities and allegiance to the court. If they are appointed, or elected to any other office under the United States then they have to take an Oath of Office for that position. Can a man serve two masters?
Holding positions in two different Branches of the Government is a violation of the Separation of Powers established in the Constitution.
For an attorney, or lawyer, to be a part of the Legislature is a direct conflict of interest because they are then in a position to create the laws in such a way as to benefit themselves and their associates.
A few years ago there was a big battle going on in the Utah Legislature. It seems that a school teacher who had been elected to the House of Representatives wanted to serve on the education committee. The lawyers stopped her because she would then be in a position to create laws more favorable to the teachers. Nothing was ever said about lawyers who are serving in the Legislature being able to create laws to benefit their profession.
On February 5, 1790, the third day of the U. S. Supreme Court conducting business, "the first three practitioners before the bar were admitted as counselors...and Rules of Court were adopted as to the form of writs and as to the admission of counselors and attorneys." At that time, without any Constitutional authority whatsoever, five United States Supreme Court Justices and Chief Justice John Jay, all former Crown Lawyers, ordered...it shall be requisite to the admission of attorneys or counselors to practice in this court, that they shall have been such for three years past in the Supreme Court of the State to which they respectively belong...
The Constitution certainly doesn't make any such requirement. And, remember, the Constitution is the Law of the Land. Violating the provisions of the Constitution is no different than breaking any other law.
Then, to compound the situation, on February 8th, 9th, and 10th, the only business transacted was the admission of sixteen further counselors and seven attorneys. Of the nineteen counselors admitted at this first Term..two were Senators and nine were Representatives. This is a clear violation of the Separation of Powers established in Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 2, as stated above.
Whenever someone was appointed as a Crown Lawyer they were granted a Title of Nobility - Esquire - and swore strict allegiance to the King. Our Supreme Court was staffed by Crown Lawyers.
Is it any wonder that the form of the writs adopted were the ones being used in England?
Starting with the Jay Supreme Court the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution has been totally ignored. Over the years the bulk of the people in our Legislature are attorneys, in direct violation of the provisions We, the People established in our Constitution.
The very first Supreme Court established government by lawyers, and we are still suffering under that problem today.
As we have attempted to demonstrate, there are ongoing unlawful attempts to abrogate and modify our Constitution.
Our freedom is under attack. Not from an armed outside enemy, but from trusted officials whom we have elected, or appointed, to watch over our Life, Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happiness.
There is no more insidious deceit than to be betrayed by an attack from trusted individuals within the system.
These people have violated their Constitutional duties.
Worse still, because they claim the honor of immunity from prosecution.
They have firmly established their private club - the BAR - as the only ones who can practice law. The only ones who can serve as judges. The only ones who can be attorney generals. All in direct defiance of our Constitution.
Yes, the 13th Amendment was unlawfully removed by the attorneys and their associates. If the 13th Amendment were in place we would not have attorneys in the Legislature because most of them would have forfieted their Citizenship because they claimed honors and privileges.
For some reason it has always been the Lawyers and Attorneys who have destroyed the nations.
Jesus Christ condemned the Lawyers when He was at Jerusalem.