[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: The United States Isn't a Country; It's a Corporation! Part II Posted earlier today; The United States Isn't a Country; It's a Corporation! This is a follow-up to that information to begin to reveal some of what was done at about that time. As to the results of what was done, you be the judge given what is happening to America today. Please note that the last time that this, what is called the TONA amendment, was verified as being published as accepted in a state of the union, was in 1868, in Colorado. You should note that date as it compares to what is spoken of in the first post and the imposition of the corporation over the states in 1871. http://www.amendment-13.org/rebuttal.html Note; this site has a lot of additional detailed information. Rebuttal To Arguments Adverse To Recognition Of The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States Note; I have, personally, met with and examined the book put together by the original researchers of this information. Their work is impressive and detailed in every way. All ts are crossed, and all i s are dotted. What does this mean? In every instance, where documentation from, for instance, the Library of Congress was required, they not only have the documentation, they have the documentation CERTIFIED by the responsible individuals in the Library of Congress, and this includes blue ribbons affached thereto. The same is true of all state material that is needed to verify what they are saying. Everything has CERTIFICATIONS attached that are impecable in the details. Only three major arguments are available for use by the most strident (private and governmental) anti-TONA critics. What exactly are these arguments? 1. Virginia never answered President Monroe/Secretary of State John Quincy Adams' inquiry about the TONA's ratification status. 2. Virginia's General Assembly members were unacquainted with the contents of the Revised Codes which the Revisal Committee produced, and voted in ignorance on that final product. 3. With Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Mississippi achieving statehood before March 12, 1819, a total of 16 affirmative state votes became the lowest number needed. Taking each argument in turn: 1. The Constitution itself is silent about notification to federal officials by the states. Each state was free to implement ratification and notification in accordance to its particular legislative customs. Strictly construed, there is absolutely no requirement, in the ratification of amendment process of the Constitution, to notify the Secretary of State. In 1818, Congress enacted a statute that required the Secretary of State to announce amendments. Virginia was under no obligation to do anything other than she did --- publish the amendment as ratified. We see on the Ratifications and Notifications page of this treatise that each did so in a different way. Virginia, being engaged in a complete revisal and codification of its laws at the time of the inquiry, elected to delay responding until completion of the revisal and printing. Upon completion of that effort, the Legislature ordered that copies be sent to the Secretary of State, Congress, the Library of Congress, the President and all living past Presidents. The State Department under Secretary of State John Quincy Adams from 1817 to 1825, during President James Monroe's administration, received four copies not later than 29 August 1821, as can be seen in the title page image of the second copy of the Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia and also in the 1820 Chapter XVIII Act of the Virginia General Assembly, passed February 24, 1820, designating the recipients of copies of this Revised Code book. These enactments by Virginia completed the ratification process. Notice the marking at the bottom of the image "C.1" drawing attention to the Amendments to the Constitution, including the 13th Titles of Nobility and Honours amendment. See Page 30 of the Revised Code showing Articles 12 and 13. 2. The assertion that Virginia's General Assembly members were unacquainted with the contents of the Revised Codes is refuted by the Revisal Committee reports to the Legislature. The Committee was diligent about keeping the members of the legislature informed of its progress revising and reorganizing Virginia's codes, providing the House of Delegates and the Senate each with a copy of the work in progress. The Act of March 12, 1819 was the culmination of this effort. This is well presented in both the Legistrative History and Legislative Extracts sections of this treatise. Additionally, the presence of cross-referenced side notes on pages 20, 21 and 30 of the Revised Codes book clearly and unequivocally demonstrate attention to the presence of the Titles of Nobility Article as the latest amendment to the constitution of the United States. 3. Factual evidence of non-participation by the above mentioned four states concerning ratification of the TONA augur a strong precedent. All parties to the process did not consider these states as entitled to participate. We know that the states themselves did not issue any request(s) to register their opinion(s). President Monroe and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams clearly did not view them as entitled to be included and Congress did not contact either their governors or legislatures for their opinions and votes on the TONA. Later historical evidence makes this argument rather weak as well. In January, 1994 the TONA Research Committee queried these four states. Each state, Louisiana, Illinois, Indiana and Mississippi returned certification reporting an absence of communication between their state and the Department of State regarding the TONA (XIII). Also, on page 964 of the Checklist of U.S. Public Documents, published in 1911 by authority of the United States Government, is the following: "The proposed 13th amendment was submitted to the States by the 11th Congress at its 2d session (May 1, 1810), and it was not until 1818 that it was ascertained that it had not been ratified. There were then 17 States, and the affirmative action of 13 were required. Twelve ratified promptly, four rejected, and Virginia was never heard from. In South Carolina the senate approved, and if the house had concurred the amendment would have been ratified. It was in fact for many years the popular belief that it had been ratified." We note, however, that this statement contains an error. Only 3 states rejected: New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. South Carolina's House of Representatives tabled the resolution and, apparently, took no further action. Thus, Virginia's enactment, publication and subsequent transmission of the Revised Codes of the Laws of Virginia to the Secretary of State, both houses of Congress, the Library of Congress, and President Monroe more than fulfilled the 13th lawful affirmative action required for ratification. This official statement that the TONA would have been ratified had South Carolina's House rendered an affirmative vote refutes the claim by some that, since the new states of Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Mississippi had been admitted to the Union, 16 votes rather than 13 were required. We have thus dispelled each of the arguments adverse to recognition of the original 13th Article of Amendment to the Constitution for the United States. It is a given that they have, indeed, dispelled each of the arguments adverse to the recognition of the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States. However, if you look at the first post today, The United States Isn't a Country; It's a Corporation!, you may find that the accepted 13th Amendment, the so-called anti-slavery Amendment, is for the Constitution OF the United States. It is truly amazing that more people do not understand that words make a difference when discussing law. In my research, the following is the best explanation that I have found about, supposedly, why the TONA amendment has never been accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment Titles of Nobility amendment (TONA) The Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution dating from 1810. It was submitted to the state legislatures during the 2nd Session of the 11th Congress via a resolution offered by U.S. Senator Philip Reed of Maryland—and has not taken effect because it has not yet been ratified by the legislatures of enough states. As quoted on page 613, Volume II, Statutes At Large, covering the 6th Congress through the 12th Congress, the proposed amendment reads: 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. The TONA—if ever ratified—would modify the following provision which appears in Article I, Section 9, of the original Constitution: 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. Proposal of the TONA by Congress The United States Senate approved the measure by a vote of 19 to 5 on April 27, 1810 (20 Annals of Congress 670-672). It was then adopted by the House of Representatives with a vote of 87 to 3 on May 1, 1810 (20 Annals of Congress 2050-2051). And with that, the TONA was presented to the state legislatures for ratification as prescribed by Article V of the Constitution. [edit] Reaction to the TONA in the state legislatures This still-pending proposed amendment is known to have been ratified by the legislatures of the following 12 states: Maryland in 1810, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont in 1811, as well as by Massachusetts on February 27, 1812, and by New Hampshire on December 9, 1812. In the specific case of South Carolina, it was reported that while its Senate voted to ratify the TONA on November 28, 1811, the state's House of Representatives did not approve the proposal. The precise action—or lack of action—in the South Carolina House of Representatives, with respect to the TONA, has not been reported. Although the act, on the part of state legislatures, of "rejecting" a proposed constitutional amendment has no legal recognition, such action does have political implications. It is believed that the TONA was specifically rejected by lawmakers in New York on March 12, 1812; by those in Connecticut on May 13, 1813; and by those in Rhode Island on September 15, 1814. As to Virginia's legislators, although it long has been maintained that no records survived of any action having been taken relative to officially ratifying, or rejecting, the TONA, an anti-TONA article (cited at the end of this article) asserts that the Virginia Senate in fact rejected the TONA on February 14, 1811. Today, with 50 states in the Union, it would take the approvals of legislators in a minimum of 38 states to achieve ratification. Per the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the 1939 case of Coleman v. Miller, the TONA is technically still subject to being approved by the nation's state lawmakers, as no deadline for ratification was specified when Congress proposed the TONA for the consideration of the states. Thus, the legislatures of at least 26 more states would have to ratify the TONA in order for it to become part of the American Constitution. [edit] Long-standing misimpression The misconception prevailed for decades that the TONA had in fact become part of the federal Constitution—indeed many printings of the Constitution during the 19th century erroneously include it as being the 13th Amendment. Perhaps this misunderstanding could be traced to the mistaken belief that both chambers of South Carolina's legislature had acted favorably upon the TONA when, apparently, only one body had done so. Or possibly, it can be attributed to the misapprehension that Virginia lawmakers had adopted the TONA, despite the long-standing belief that there was a lack of documentation that either chamber of Virginia's legislature ever even so much as considered the TONA. That is not where the misunderstandings end. There is a further mistaken belief that the TONA was, at all stages, just one state's adoption shy of being incorporated into the federal Constitution. When the TONA was offered by Congress to the state legislatures on May 1, 1810, the approval of 13 of them would indeed have been required. However, with the addition of Louisiana into the Union on April 30, 1812, that threshold increased to 14 state approvals. Louisiana's statehood commenced after the Massachusetts ratification of the TONA, but prior to the New Hampshire ratification of it. Then, when Indiana was admitted on December 11, 1816, the bar was raised up to 15 approvals need to ratify the TONA. And although the admission of Mississippi on December 10, 1817, did not increase the numerical requirement, the entry of Illinois on December 3, 1818, did elevate that minimum to 16 state adoptions necessary for the TONA to be incorporated into the Constitution of the United States of America. It should be clarified that the actual 13th Amendment was ratified in December of 1865 and abolished slavery uniformly throughout the United States. [edit] Why the TONA was proposed There is speculation that the TONA was proposed by Congress in response to the 1803 marriage of Napoleon Bonaparte's younger brother, Jerome, and Betsy Patterson of Baltimore who gave birth to a boy for whom she wanted aristocratic recognition from France. The child, named Jerome Napoleon "Bo" Bonaparte, was born, not in the United States, but in Great Britain on July 7, 1805—nevertheless, he would have held American citizenship through his mother. Another theory is that his mother actually desired a title of nobility for herself and, indeed, she is referred to as the "Duchess of Baltimore" in many texts written about the TONA. However, the marriage had been annulled in 1805—well before the TONA's proposal by the 11th Congress. [edit] The TONA's effects—if ever ratified It is and was relatively uncommon for American citizens to receive titles of nobility from foreign countries, so the TONA's impact would be limited. But, if implemented today, the TONA's possible effects could include: • The amendment could be interpreted as applying to a United States citizen who "received" an honor, whether or not he or she actually accepted that honor. Under such an interpretation, any nation might use the amendment as a ploy to deprive a United States citizen of his or her citizenship (though it is doubtful that any court would have so rigidly ruled). • Absent Congressional consent, pensions to which naturalized citizens are entitled from their original countries could only be accepted, even if earned, at the cost of their American citizenship. • Absent Congressional consent, natural-born United States citizens of dual nationality could be restricted in accepting pensions from their other nationality. • Absent Congressional consent, honorary titles could not be offered or accepted and would have to be disclaimed prior to becoming a U.S. citizen. Knighthoods from Britain have been received by Ronald Reagan GCB, George Herbert Walker Bush GCB, Norman Schwarzkopf KCB (who received congressional approval)[citation needed], Caspar Weinberger GBE, Rudy Giuliani KBE, William Henry Gates III KBE, and many others. • Absent Congressional consent, if considered honors, gallantry awards from foreign powers could not be accepted. International medal awards are fairly common. For example, on July 24, 2002, Australian SAS commander in Afghanistan Lieutenant-Colonel Rowan Tink was awarded a U.S. Bronze Star. • Absent Congressional consent, citizens could no longer accept the Nobel prize, which is certainly an emolument and arguably an honor, and is presented by a king. [edit] Theories Some people claim that the TONA actually was properly ratified and that it has been suppressed as part of a vast conspiracy orchestrated by attorneys who do not wish to forfeit their American citizenship when they use the title "Esquire" after their last name (although Esquire, even in the United Kingdom, is not a title of nobility). There is a school of thought that Virginia lawmakers adopted the TONA sometime before the invasion of the eastern portion of the United States by British troops during the War of 1812 and that, as a consequence of the sacking, pillaging, and burning of government records in Virginia and Washington, D.C., by the British, there was a loss of the documentation which would attest to a valid ratification of the TONA by Virginia's legislators. The assertion that the TONA actually was validly ratified has never been upheld by any court in the United States. To the contrary, in the few instances in which courts have been confronted with such claims, judges have brushed those claims aside. In Campion v. Towns, No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2005), a tax protester raised TONA as one of his defenses to a charge of tax evasion. The court replied that it would "correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution": In his Complaint, Plaintiff includes a certified copy of the Thirteenth Amendment from the Colorado State Archives which was published in 1861. As included in that compilation, the Thirteenth Amendment would strip an individual of United States citizenship if they accept any title of nobility or honor. However, this is not the Thirteenth Amendment. The correct Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery. Although some people claim that state publication of the erroneous Thirteenth Amendment makes it valid, Article V of the Constitution does not so provide. In another case, Sibley v. Culliver, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1283 (M.D. Ala. 2003), aff'd 377 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2004), a federal court in Alabama found that the defendant's invocation of TONA actually worked to his detriment. The court took note of documents produced by the defendant, a convicted murderer who submitted documents in support of his appeal claiming that TONA rendered his conviction invalid: These documents allege in great detail a complex conspiracy by an illegal monopoly, the American Bar Association, which resulted in a take-over of the judicial systems of this country, both federal and state, by the ABA and its related entities, including the Alabama State Bar Association and Alabama's Unified Court System. It is then alleged that the ABA-controlled system is illegal and in violation of what is referred to as the "missing Thirteenth Amendment," to the United States Constitution, which stated that any person who accepts a title of nobility forfeits his United States citizenship, and which Amendment was ratified but subsequently hidden or excised from the law. Since lawyers and judges accept the titles "Esquire" and "The Honorable," it is argued, they are not citizens and the entire judicial system is illegal. Furthermore, these documents contend that the charge of conviction in this case, capital murder of a police officer acting in the line of duty, is unconstitutional because it bestows upon police officers special rights or a special designation of the worth of life in contravention of the "missing Thirteenth Amendment." The documents then explain that these are reasons that Sibley and his wife refused appointed counsel on appeal and refused to pursue matters any further in the court system, and that only Congress can give them relief. The Sibley court dismissed the appeal, concluding in part that the defendant was simply not seeking relief through the courts. Furthermore, supporters maintain that—if ratified—the TONA would have consequences above and beyond those listed above. Among the TONA's claimed additional effects would be: 1. When someone in the United States becomes a lawyer, he or she often uses the title of "Esquire" (or an abbreviation thereof) to signify his or her status, much as doctors attach "M.D." to their names. Supporters of the TONA claim that this constitutes "a British title of gentry" because the state bar associations in the United States were franchises of the British International Bar Association in the early 1800s. Therefore, so the argument goes, any lawyer in the United States who uses the title "Esquire" is British gentry, and would—under a validly-ratified TONA—forsake his or her American citizenship, and be unable to hold any U.S. government office. 2. The word "honour" (as it is spelled in the text of the proposed TONA) in the phrase "title of nobility or honour" should not be interpreted as "title of honour" in the traditional sense, but rather as "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another," which includes, among other things, the immunity to lawsuits which is held by various government officials. Theoretically then—were TONA to ever be ratified—there is a school of thought that judges could be sued for the legal decisions that they make, and that legislators could be sued for the laws that they pass. [edit] Domestic titles of nobility The TONA does not say anything about domestic titles of nobility—only those which might be issued by foreign powers. Even if it might be seriously contended that attorneys and others hold special "honors" or privileges by virtue of their positions, the language of this proposed amendment probably would not apply if such titles were to be issued by federal or state governments. (Congress, and most state legislatures, are otherwise precluded from issuing domestic titles of nobility, as Article I, Section 9, of the original Constitution—quoted above—makes clear). Quite frankly, research from the era of the proposal of the amendment shows that it was specifically aimed at Esquires, who were beginning to gain a large hold on events within Washington, DC. Hindsight tells us that the TONA amendment was a very good, and needed, idea. To me, THE largest problems that America has is that nearly all politicians within the United States are officiers of the court, sworn to uphold the court's decisions and do nothing adverse to the court. That is to say, they are Esquires, affliated with the BAR (British Accredation Association) and holding that affilation above and beyond anything else. Quite frankly, I do hold with these quotes; Lawyers: 99.9 percent of them give the rest of the profession a bad name…. It also can be said better: When do you know a lawyer is lying? When his mouth is open. Leeches What is the difference between a leech and a lawyer? The leech stops sucking you dry after you're dead. I don't think you can make a lawyer honest by an act of legislation. You've got to work on his conscience. And his lack of conscience is what makes him a lawyer — Will Rogers (1879-1935) But you be the judge.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: richard9151 (#0)
Colorado did not become a state of the union until 1876.
#3. To: nolu_chan (#2)
Noted. Which is probably why it was still being published in, actually, 1867. I should note that it was also published as late as 1876 in Wyoming territory.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||