photo by Marvin J. Ramirez
THOSE WHO CANNOT RECALL HISTORY
Marvin J. Ramírez
In his farewell address, George Washington warned of: “… change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
In 1788, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a “Declaration of Rights” similar to Virginia’s. Three of his suggestions were “freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by jury in all cases” and “no suspensions of the habeas corpus.”
No doubt Washington’s warning and Jefferson’s ideas were dismissed as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed our legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when that was one of the primary causes for the rebellion against King George III?
This is the forth part of the article: The lost 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
Last week we ran the third part of this multi-part article, in hope that it will provide our readers with information that has been kept a secret by the controllers of our country – the bankers and their private army of lawyers.
What follows is an article reprinted from the “AntiShyster,” in “The Correspondent” of Condon, Montana.
Yes. In January 1810, Republican (the ancestors of the modern Democrats) Senator Philip Reed introduced an amendment that, after twice being considered by a committee, was approved by the Senate by a vote of 19 to 5 on April 26, 1810. The House then on May 1, 1810 approved the amendment by a vote of 87 to 3. (See Conklin at 123) As approved, the text was as follows: “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.”
Yet, the denial of trial by jury is now common place in our Courts, and habeas corpus, for crimes against the State, has been suspended. (By crimes against theState, we refer to “political crimes” where there is no injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is equally imaginary.)
The authority to create monopolies was judge-made laws by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et.al. during the early 1800’s. Judges (and lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the “Acts” of the People “un-Constitutional”, waited until their decision was grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the Bar Associations.
Although Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates that Executive Orders and Treaties are binding upon the States (“… and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”), the Supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the States, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the “Declaration of Independence,” exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw in “Notes on the State of Virginia”, Query 17, p. 161, [1784]:
“Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless … the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”
We await the inevitable convulsion.
Only two questions remain: Will we fight to revive our Rights? Or will we meekly submit as our last remaining Rights expire, surrendered to the Courts, and perhaps to a “New World Order”?
MORE EDITIONS FOUND We have received information from a researcher in Indiana, and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions of statutes that include the Constitution and the missing 13th Amendment.
These editions were printed by: Ohio, 1819; Connecticut (one of the States that voted against ratifying the Amendment), 1835; Kansas, 1861; and the Colorado Territory, 1865 and 1867.
These finds are important because:
1. they offer independent confirmation of Dodge’s claims; and
2. they extend the known dates of publications from Nebraska, 1860 (Dodge’s most recent find), to Colorado in 1867.
The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the “missing” 13th Amendment, and the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition.
ARGUMENTS Imagine a Nation which prohibited at least some lawyers from serving in government. Imagine a government prohibited from writing laws granting “honors” (special privileges, immunities, or advantages) to individuals, groups, or government officials. Imagine a government that could only write laws that applied to everyone, even themselves, equally. It would mean a government unable to pass special interest legislation, grant tax breaks to some at the expense of others, or routinely rule in favor of one class at the expense of another. It would mean true political equality, not only between individual citizens, but even between the citizens and their government.
It would mean a government that was effectively prohibited from exploiting its own people. It has never been done before. Not once.
But it has been tried: In 1810 the Congress of the United States proposed a 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that might have given us just that sort of equality and political paradise. The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge and Tom Dunn discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which contained the U.S. Constitution and a 13th Amendment which no longer appears in the Constitution: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, 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.”
This Amendment would have restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government, and would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest legislation, tax breaks, or special immunities for anyone, not even themselves. It might have guaranteed a level of political equality in this Nation that most people can’t even imagine. Since 1983, researchers have uncovered evidence that:
1. The 13th Amendment prohibiting “titles of nobility” and “honors” appeared in at least 30 editions of the Constitutions of the United States which were printed by at least 14 States or Territories between 1819 and 1867; and
2. This Amendment quietly disappeared from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War.
Either this Amendment:
1. Was unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years; or
2. Was ratified in 1819, and then illegally removed from the Constitution by 1867.
If this 13th Amendment was not ratified and mistakenly published, the story has remained unnoticed in American history for over a century. If so, it’s at least a good story – an extraordinary historical anecdote.
On the other hand, if Dodge is right and the Amendment was truly ratified, the Amendment has been subverted from our Constitution.
If so, this “missing” Amendment would still be the Law, and this story could be one of the most important stories in American History. Whatever is the answer, it’s certain that something extraordinary happened to our Constitution between 1819 and 1867.
