Misplaced Pages

Titles of Nobility Amendment: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:54, 14 May 2014 editSMP0328. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,242 editsm →Misconceptions: Replaced remaining uses of "TONA"; other wording tweaksTag: Visual edit← Previous edit Revision as of 02:27, 14 May 2014 edit undoDrdpw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users45,827 edits Changes made following talk page discussion; general clean-up done as well.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{US Constitution article series}} {{US Constitution article series}}
The '''Titles of Nobility Amendment''' was proposed as an amendment to the ] by the ] in 1810. The proposed amendment would strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign country. It was ] by 12 ], and on two occasions between 1812 and 1816 was within two states of the required three-quarters, though it never reached that threshold and thus is not part of the Constitution. Congress did not impose a time limit for ratification, so this proposed amendment technically could still become part of the Constitution if it were ratified by an additional 26 states. The '''Titles of Nobility Amendment''' is a proposed ] to the ]. Approved by the ] on May 1, 1810 and submitted to the ] for ratification, it would, if ratified by the requisite number of states, strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign country. Twice in 1812 it came within two states of the number needed to become a valid part of the Constitution. As Congress did not set a ] for its ratification, the amendment is still technically pending before the states. At the present time, ratification by an additional 26 states would be necessary for this amendment to ].


==Text== ==Text==
{{quote|If any ] of the ] shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any ] 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.<ref>As quoted on page 613, Volume II, ''Statutes At Large'', covering the ] through the ].</ref><ref name='AmendmentsNotRatified'>{{cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/house/Amendnotrat.shtml|title=Constitutional Amendments Not Ratified|accessdate=2007-09-30|publisher=United States House of Representatives}}</ref>}} {{quote|If any ] of the ] shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any ] 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<ref>{{cite web|title=The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Centennial Edition, Interim Edition: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 26, 2013|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013.pdf|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office|accessdate=Mayl 11, 2014|location=Washington, DC|page=49|year=2013}}</ref>}}


==Background==
==Proposal and rationale==
⚫ This proposed amendment was intended to amplify both ] which prohibits the ] from issuing titles of nobility or honor, and also ]
The ] approved the measure by a vote of 19–5 on April 26, 1810.<ref>20 ''Annals of Congress'' 670–672</ref> It was then adopted by the ] with a vote of 87–3 on May 1, 1810.<ref>20 ''Annals of Congress'' 2050–2051</ref> After the Congress passed it, the amendment was submitted to the ] for ].

⚫ The proposed amendment was intended to expand upon ] and ] of the Constitution, which prohibits the ] and the ] from issuing titles of nobility or honor.


There is speculation that the Congress proposed the amendment in response to the 1803 marriage of ] younger brother, ], and ] of ], ], who gave birth to a boy for whom she wanted aristocratic recognition from France.<ref name="silversmith">{{citation|author=Jol A. Silversmith|volume=8|journal=Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal|page=577|date=April 1999|url=http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html|title=The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility}}</ref> The child, named ], was not born in the United States, but in Great Britain on July 7, 1805—nevertheless, he would have held U.S. 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 amendment. The marriage had been annulled in 1805—well before the amendment's proposal by the ]. Nonetheless, Representative ] of ] is recorded to have said, when voting on the amendment, that "he considered the vote on this question as deciding whether or not we were to have members of the ] in this country."<ref>21 "Annals of Congress" 2050</ref> There is speculation that the Congress proposed the amendment in response to the 1803 marriage of ] younger brother, ], and ] of ], ], who gave birth to a boy for whom she wanted aristocratic recognition from France.<ref name="silversmith">{{citation|author=Jol A. Silversmith|volume=8|journal=Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal|page=577|date=April 1999|url=http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html|title=The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility}}</ref> The child, named ], was not born in the United States, but in Great Britain on July 7, 1805—nevertheless, he would have held U.S. 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 amendment. The marriage had been annulled in 1805—well before the amendment's proposal by the ]. Nonetheless, Representative ] of ] is recorded to have said, when voting on the amendment, that "he considered the vote on this question as deciding whether or not we were to have members of the ] in this country."<ref>21 "Annals of Congress" 2050</ref>


==Legislative and ratification history==
==Reaction in the state legislatures==
The proposed Constitutional amendment, introduced first in the ] by ] Senator ] of ],<ref name="newsweek">{{cite journal|last=Adler|first=Jerry|title=The Move to 'Restore' the 13th Amendment|journal=Newsweek|date=7/26/10|url=http://www.newsweek.com/move-restore-13th-amendment-74391}}</ref> was passed on April 27, 1810, by a vote of 19–5<ref>20 ''Annals of Congress'' 670–672</ref> and sent to the ] for its consideration. It passed there on May 1, 1810, by a vote of 87–3.<ref>20 ''Annals of Congress'' 2050–2051</ref> Having been approved by Congress, the amendment, titled ''"Article Thirteen"'', was sent to the ] for ratification, and was ratified by the following states:<ref name="VCCG">{{cite book|title=The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto|year=1961|publisher=Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government|page=65|editor=James J. Kilpatrick}}</ref>
This amendment was ratified by 12 ]:<ref name="silversmith"/>
#] (December 25, 1810) #] — December 25, 1810
#] (January 31, 1811) #] — January 31, 1811
#] (January 31, 1811) #] — January 31, 1811
#] (February 2, 1811) #] — February 2, 1811
#] (February 6, 1811) #] — February 6, 1811
#] (February 13, 1811) #] — February 13, 1811
#] (October 24, 1811) #] — October 24, 1811
#] (November 21, 1811) #] — November 21, 1811
#] (December 23, 1811) #] — December 23, 1811
#] (December 31, 1811)<ref name="silversmith"/> #] (December 31, 1811
#] (February 27, 1812) #] — February 27, 1812
#] (December 9, 1812) #] — December 9, 1812
The amendment was rejected by ] (March 12, 1812), ] (May 13, 1813). and ] (September 15, 1814). No other state legislature has completed ratification action on it.


Ratification by 13 states was required when ''Article Thirteen'' was submitted in order for it to become a valid part of the Constitution. However, with the addition of ] into the Union (April 30, 1812), the threshold rose to 14 states. Thus in 1812, the amendment was twice within 2 states of being ratified. Never the less, when ] and ] became states (December 11, 1816 and December 10, 1817 respectively) the threshold became 15. Today, with 50 states in the Union, it has climbed to 38 and ratification by 26 additional states would be necessary in order to incorporate the proposed Title of Nobility Amendment into the Constitution.<ref name="silversmith"/>
The amendment was rejected by three state legislatures:
#] (March 12, 1812)
#] (May 13, 1813)
#] (September 15, 1814)


On February 27, 1818, ] communicated to Congress the record shown above. He and Congress were both satisfied that the required number of ratifications had not been reached. A law, passed April 20, 1818, placed official responsibility for overseeing the amendment process into the hands of the of the ], where it remained until 1950.<ref name="VCCG"/>
]'s Senate voted to ratify the amendment on November 28, 1811, but its House of Representatives rejected the amendment three years later on December 21, 1814. Although ] has long maintained that there are no surviving records indicating any action having been taken relative to officially ratifying or rejecting the amendment, state legislative records indicate that the Virginia House of Delegates approved the amendment on February 2, 1811,<ref>Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia 91 (Richmond, Samuel Pleasants, 1810 )</ref> but the Virginia Senate rejected the amendment on February 14, 1811.<ref>Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia 83 (Richmond, Thomas Ritchie, 1810 )</ref> Most likely, records of Virginia's ratification or Virginia may have not existed or, if existed, been lost or destroyed during the ] (along with some other legal records).<ref name=Discerning>{{cite web|date=April 15, 2013|url=http://discerninghistory.com/2013/04/the-lost-13th-amendment/|title=The Lost 13th Amendment|work=Discerning History|accessdate=February 22, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://silverunderground.com/2012/10/titles-of-nobility-the-lost-13th-amendment/|title=Titles of Nobility: The Lost 13th Amendment|date=October 9, 2012|work=Silver Circle Underground|accessdate=February 22, 2014}}</ref> Also, the War may have delayed the voting process on the amendment.

Per '']'', {{ussc|307|433|1939}}, the amendment is technically still subject to being approved by the nation's state lawmakers, as no deadline for ratification was specified when Congress proposed the amendment for the consideration of the states. As there are now 50 ], the legislatures of at least 26 more states (38 in total) would have to ratify the amendment in order for it to become part of the Constitution.


==Misconceptions== ==Misconceptions==
It has been claimed that the proposed amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution—indeed many printings of the Constitution during the 19th century erroneously included it as a ].<ref name="silversmith"/><ref>{{cite journal|last=Hart|first=Gideon M.|title=The 'Original' Thirteenth Amendment: The Misunderstood Titles of Nobility Amendment|journal=Marquette Law Review|volume=94|issue=311|year=2010|ssrn=1788908}}</ref> Perhaps this misunderstanding could be traced to the mistaken belief that ''both'' legislative houses of South Carolina and/or Virginia had acted favorably upon the proposal when, in each case, apparently only one of the houses did so.<ref name="silversmith"/> In general, 19th century procedures for communicating and recording the ratifications of constitutional amendments were haphazard, and some pre-] printings of the Constitution included the amendment out of uncertainty.<ref name="silversmith"/><ref name="Daily Kos">{{cite web|url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/10/356123/-The-Missing-13th-Amendment-an-odd-Constitution-story|title=The "Missing" 13th Amendment, an odd Constitution story|work=The Daily Kos}}</ref> Many other 19th century printings omit it, especially after the Civil War.<ref name="silversmith"/><ref name="Daily Kos"/> It has been claimed that the Titles of Nobility Amendment, ''Article Thirteen'', did in fact became part of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed it was included in some printings of the Constitution from the early 19th century erroneously titled as the ''Thirterenth Amendment''.<ref name="silversmith"/><ref>{{cite journal|last=Hart|first=Gideon M.|title=The 'Original' Thirteenth Amendment: The Misunderstood Titles of Nobility Amendment|journal=Marquette Law Review|volume=94|issue=311|year=2010|ssrn=1788908}}</ref> Between 1819&ndash;1867 the ] of ] included it as well.<ref>{{cite web|date=April 15, 2013|url=http://discerninghistory.com/2013/04/the-lost-13th-amendment/|title=The Lost 13th Amendment|work=Discerning History|accessdate=February 22, 2014}}</ref> The term "Thirteenthers" has sometimes been used in recent years to refer to those who mistakenly believe this amendment was ratified in the 1810s, as well as for those who today wish to see this amendment ratified and made operational.<ref name="newsweek"/>


⚫ The assertion that the Titles of Nobility amendment has been ratified by the required number of states has never been upheld by any court in the United States. In the few instances in which courts have been confronted with the assertion that was, those claims have been dismissed. In ''Campion v. Towns'', ] (] 2005), a ] raised it in his defenses against a charge of tax evasion.<ref>''Campion v. Towns'', No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (] 2005).</ref> The court replied that it would "correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution":
There is a further misapprehension that the proposal was, at some stage in the ratification process, just one state's adoption shy of being incorporated into the United States Constitution.<ref name="silversmith"/>
⚫ {{quote|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'', ] (] 2003), ''aff'd'' ] (] 2004), a federal appellate court found that the defendant's invocation of this amendment 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 it rendered his conviction invalid:{{quote|These documents allege in great detail a complex conspiracy by an illegal monopoly, the ], 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"/"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.
When the Congress submitted the proposal to the state legislatures on May 1, 1810, the approval of 13 of them would indeed have been required. Massachusetts ratified it on February 27, 1812, thereby bringing the total to 11. However, with the addition of ] into the Union on April 30, 1812, the threshold increased to 14 states. New Hampshire's subsequent ratification brought the proposal again within two states of ratification. However, the threshold was raised by the admission of further states in subsequent years, while no further states have ratified the amendment.<ref name="silversmith"/> In 1819–67, Virginia published the proposal as the "13th" amendment.<ref name="Discerning"/> Some argued it as authentic and accurate to prove the state's ratification, but the website ''Discerning History'' called an inclusion as part of the Constitution "a clerical mistake" by the state legislature.<ref name="Discerning"/>


On February 1, 1865, ] passed and sent to the states for ratification another ''Article Thirteen''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Joint Resolution Submitting 13th Amendment to the States; signed by Abraham Lincoln and Congress|work=The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress: Series 3. General Correspondence. 1837-1897|publisher=Library of Congress|url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mal&fileName=mal3/436/4361100/malpage.db&recNum=0}}</ref> This one, a Constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, was adopted and is the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment13/|title=Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude|publisher=]|accessdate=April 18, 2012}}</ref>
The term "Thirteenthers" is sometimes used to refer to those who mistakenly believe this amendment was ratified or to those who would like to see ratification of this proposed amendment.<ref name=newsweek>, ''Newsweek'', July 27 2010</ref><ref>, ''National Post'', July 29 2010</ref>

Not until 1865 was a proposed Thirteenth Amendment adopted. That amendment abolished slavery throughout the United States.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment13/|title=Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude|publisher=]|accessdate=April 18, 2012}}</ref>

===Courts===
⚫ The assertion that the proposed amendment became part of the Constitution has never been upheld by any court in the United States. In the few instances in which courts have been confronted with this assertion, judges have brushed those claims aside. In ''Campion v. Towns'', ] (] 2005), a ] raised this assertion as one of his defenses to a charge of tax evasion.<ref>''Campion v. Towns'', No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (] 2005).</ref> The court replied that it would "correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution":

⚫ {{quote|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'', ] (] 2003), ''aff'd'' ] (] 2004), a federal appellate court found that the defendant's invocation of the proposed amendment 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 the proposed amendment rendered his conviction invalid:{{quote|These documents allege in great detail a complex conspiracy by an illegal monopoly, the ], 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"/"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.


==See also== ==See also==
⚫ *'']''
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
⚫ *'']''
⚫ *]


==References== ==References==
Line 66: Line 53:


{{DEFAULTSORT:Titles Of Nobility Amendment}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Titles Of Nobility Amendment}}
⚫ ]
] ]
]

Revision as of 02:27, 14 May 2014

This article is part of a series on the
Constitution
of the United States
Preamble and Articles
Amendments to the Constitution
Unratified Amendments:
History
Full text

The Titles of Nobility Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. Approved by the 11th Congress on May 1, 1810 and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification, it would, if ratified by the requisite number of states, strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign country. Twice in 1812 it came within two states of the number needed to become a valid part of the Constitution. As Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the amendment is still technically pending before the states. At the present time, ratification by an additional 26 states would be necessary for this amendment to come into force.

Text

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

Background

This proposed amendment was intended to amplify both Article I, Section 9 which prohibits the federal government from issuing titles of nobility or honor, and also Section 10

There is speculation that the Congress proposed the amendment in response to the 1803 marriage of Napoleon Bonaparte's younger brother, Jerome, and Betsy Patterson of Baltimore, Maryland, who gave birth to a boy for whom she wanted aristocratic recognition from France. The child, named Jérôme Napoleon Bonaparte, was not born in the United States, but in Great Britain on July 7, 1805—nevertheless, he would have held U.S. 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 amendment. The marriage had been annulled in 1805—well before the amendment's proposal by the 11th Congress. Nonetheless, Representative Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina is recorded to have said, when voting on the amendment, that "he considered the vote on this question as deciding whether or not we were to have members of the Legion of Honor in this country."

Legislative and ratification history

The proposed Constitutional amendment, introduced first in the Senate by Democratic–Republican Senator Philip Reed of Maryland, was passed on April 27, 1810, by a vote of 19–5 and sent to the House of Representatives for its consideration. It passed there on May 1, 1810, by a vote of 87–3. Having been approved by Congress, the amendment, titled "Article Thirteen", was sent to the state legislatures for ratification, and was ratified by the following states:

  1. Maryland — December 25, 1810
  2. Kentucky — January 31, 1811
  3. Ohio — January 31, 1811
  4. Delaware — February 2, 1811
  5. Pennsylvania — February 6, 1811
  6. New Jersey — February 13, 1811
  7. Vermont — October 24, 1811
  8. Tennessee — November 21, 1811
  9. North Carolina — December 23, 1811
  10. Georgia (December 31, 1811
  11. Massachusetts — February 27, 1812
  12. New Hampshire — December 9, 1812

The amendment was rejected by New York (March 12, 1812), Connecticut (May 13, 1813). and Rhode Island (September 15, 1814). No other state legislature has completed ratification action on it.

Ratification by 13 states was required when Article Thirteen was submitted in order for it to become a valid part of the Constitution. However, with the addition of Louisiana into the Union (April 30, 1812), the threshold rose to 14 states. Thus in 1812, the amendment was twice within 2 states of being ratified. Never the less, when Indiana and Mississippi became states (December 11, 1816 and December 10, 1817 respectively) the threshold became 15. Today, with 50 states in the Union, it has climbed to 38 and ratification by 26 additional states would be necessary in order to incorporate the proposed Title of Nobility Amendment into the Constitution.

On February 27, 1818, President James Monroe communicated to Congress the record shown above. He and Congress were both satisfied that the required number of ratifications had not been reached. A law, passed April 20, 1818, placed official responsibility for overseeing the amendment process into the hands of the of the Secretary of State, where it remained until 1950.

Misconceptions

It has been claimed that the Titles of Nobility Amendment, Article Thirteen, did in fact became part of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed it was included in some printings of the Constitution from the early 19th century erroneously titled as the Thirterenth Amendment. Between 1819–1867 the statutory law code of Virginia included it as well. The term "Thirteenthers" has sometimes been used in recent years to refer to those who mistakenly believe this amendment was ratified in the 1810s, as well as for those who today wish to see this amendment ratified and made operational.

The assertion that the Titles of Nobility amendment has been ratified by the required number of states has never been upheld by any court in the United States. In the few instances in which courts have been confronted with the assertion that was, those claims have been dismissed. In Campion v. Towns, No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2005), a tax protester raised it in his defenses against 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 appellate court found that the defendant's invocation of this amendment 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 it 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"/"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.

On February 1, 1865, 38th Congress passed and sent to the states for ratification another Article Thirteen. This one, a Constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, was adopted and is the Thirteenth Amendment.

See also

References

  1. "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Centennial Edition, Interim Edition: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 26, 2013" (PDF). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2013. p. 49. Retrieved Mayl 11, 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ Jol A. Silversmith (April 1999), "The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility", Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 8: 577
  3. 21 "Annals of Congress" 2050
  4. ^ Adler, Jerry (7/26/10). "The Move to 'Restore' the 13th Amendment". Newsweek. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. 20 Annals of Congress 670–672
  6. 20 Annals of Congress 2050–2051
  7. ^ James J. Kilpatrick, ed. (1961). The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto. Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government. p. 65.
  8. Hart, Gideon M. (2010). "The 'Original' Thirteenth Amendment: The Misunderstood Titles of Nobility Amendment". Marquette Law Review. 94 (311). SSRN 1788908.
  9. "The Lost 13th Amendment". Discerning History. April 15, 2013. Retrieved February 22, 2014.
  10. Campion v. Towns, No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2005).
  11. "Joint Resolution Submitting 13th Amendment to the States; signed by Abraham Lincoln and Congress". The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress: Series 3. General Correspondence. 1837-1897. Library of Congress.
  12. "Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude". FindLaw. Retrieved April 18, 2012.
Constitution of the United States
Articles
Amendments
Bill of Rights
1795–1804
Reconstruction
20th century
Unratified
Proposed
Formation
Clauses
Interpretation
Signatories
Convention President
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Convention Secretary
Related
Display
and legacy
Categories: