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.
Sir; i have contacted tea party groups and they told me NO rallies are planned in the wake of the horror our pres just caused; one of them he has committed at least 150 treasonous acts i have a list of them all this is but one
ART 1 SECT 8 CLAUSE 4: ONLY CONGRESS HAS POWER OVER IMMIG & NATURALIZATION AND
ART II SECT 3 HE IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE THAT HE FAITHFULLY EXECUTES THE LAWS (HE IS NOT EXECUTING THE PRESENT FED IMMIG LAWS OR INVOKING ART IV SECT 4 AND USING MILITARY FORCE TO STOP ALL OF THIS ) WHICH HE CREATED CLOWARD AND PIVEN FOR SURE
HE IS SUPPOSED TO OBEY THE CONSTITUTION AND KEEP US SAFE HES DONE NEITHER
HE IS DESTROYING OUR NATION
WHAT RALLIES DO WE HAVE PLANNED? I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY. WE CANNOT JUST SIT STILL
bonnie, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama II is just one man; Congress and the 'inferior' Supreme Court are 544 'men' guilty of supporting Master Usurper. Why has no one in Congress question Obama's constitutional eligibility? Why did the Senate hold a Special Session to question John McCain?
If Obama is in that office legally, why did he identifying himself as an Indonesian citizen? Why does he identify his father as a British Subject; which made him a British Subject at birth?
He advertised he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii for 16 years. Was that just another lie?
If he was a natural born citizen, he lost that status when he was adopted into Indonesian citizenship.
A second Operation American Spring? We need millions, not thousands, and it appears there are too many unwilling or unable to be where we need them. It appears we are dependent upon this box to email and fax, etc, which is then so easy to ignore. Then what?
PLEASE read Article 1, sec. 8, cl. 4 again and CAREFULLY!
Congress was never granted power to make immigration OR naturalization laws. Congress was commanded to make a "uniform RULE of naturalization" , and no authority was given to interfere with the populations of the several state/republics. Why a RULE? Congress as a body was forbidden to dictate (make a law) to the states as to how many people they could have; Congress was, as the united States in Congress assembled, directed to form a rule that would be uniform (and agreeable) for all the states, and that rule was to be taken back to the states and made a STATE LAW, thereby conforming to Article 4, sec. 1The several states are (as is their prerogative) to regulate their populations independently.
Congress and the Executive commit treason by interfering with sovereign state republic functions.
The (our) Declaration of Independence declared "all men are created equal", yet the government of the new nation permitted slavery in their new nation.
If titles of nobility was not to be permitted, why is ex-president referred to as President for the rest of their lives after they leave office? Why are ex-senators titled Senator after they leave office?
That being as it is, why isn't former Representatives titled after they leave office? Is Mr. or Ma'am considered a title or common curtesy after they leave office?
This stuff runs so deep, guess what it'll take to unearth it? To get lawyers out of these positions would virtually remove everyone..... God save our farmers, soldiers and small business leaders for another day.
How does being ordered to fight for the UN apply, beige that the orders came from Clinton is not he in violation of this amendment?
And would that not be an impeachable offence?
This is an accurate piece of information and should be studied and learned in family settings. jb
Many have mentioned Obismal may attempt to remain President after his term is completed....and in effect become a Dictator. Well, THIS is what the law says about that:
Q: What does the law say about the number of terms/years a President can serve?A: We get a lot of questions from people who believe that the law only prohibits Presidents from serving more than two consecutive terms, when, in fact this is not the case. They also wonder what limits are placed on someone who becomes President during the middle of a term. Amendment 22 of the Constitution covers both of these issues. Here is the applicable text from this Amendment:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
(Text taken fromhttp://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_1....)
So stop calling Obama anything besides what he is. An illegal.
Debrajoe,......but you are taking the creativity out of calling Obama anything besides what he is, i.e.:
Obismal; Odirtbag; Odouchbag; Ogoodgodamighty; OscumO; Odumbo; Ovomit; ..............and many, many more.
I have taken to using Obismal because I think that is exactly what he is !
Bond v United States, 529 US 334
1] The delegates to the first Federal Convention prohibited the use of corporations by all governments representing the American Republic. Therefore, all of these corporate governments and their corporate laws are a usurpation of the organic Constitution of the United States of America. All State Governments are now sub-corporations of the Federal Government, making all Courts and all law enforcement personnel, corporate federal agencies or employees. [See: James Madison Journal of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, P. 722] and [Pull up your State Code on your PC and search the Code for the words “District of Columbia” and “Federal Government.” You will receive about 1000 references linking your state to the federal government.]