"The Original 13th Amendment
This Article of Amendment, ratified in 1819 and which just "disappeared" in 1876, added an enforceable strict penalty, i.e., inability to hold office and loss of citizenship, for violations of the already existing constitutional prohibition in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 on titles of nobility and other conflicts of citizenship interest, such as accepting emoluments of any kind for services or favors rendered or to be rendered, and is particularly applicable today in the 21st Century as government is increasingly FOR SALE to the highest bidder, as foreign and multinational corporations and individuals compete to line the pockets of politicians and political parties..."
The Original :
"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."
Interesting info to consider...
There's a Baltimore link here.The Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) was proposed as an amendment to the United States Constitution in 1810. The amendment would strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign country. Upon approval of a resolution offered by U.S. Senator Philip Reed of Maryland, during the 2nd Session of the 11th Congress, TONA was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. TONA can still technically be ratified by the states as the Congress did not impose a ratification time limit, but it has not been ratified by three-fourths of the states and thus is not part of the Constitution.
Dieser Weg wird kein leichter sein; dieser Weg wird steinig und schwer.
Nicht mit vielen wirst du dir einig sein, doch dieses Leben bietet so viel mehr. --Xavier Naidoo
It has been claimed that the TONA became part of the U.S. Constitution—indeed many printings of the Constitution during the 19th century erroneously included it as a Thirteenth Amendment. Perhaps this misunderstanding could be traced to the mistaken belief that both houses of South Carolina's legislature had acted favorably upon the TONA when, evidently, only one of its houses did so. It can also be attributed to the misimpression that both houses of Virginia's legislature had adopted the TONA—again, when apparently only one of its houses did so. In general, 19th century procedures for communicating and recording the ratifications of constitutional amendments were haphazard and some printings of the Constitution included the amendment out of uncertainty. Many other 19th century printings omit it.
Thanks , Jeebus .
Seems like an excellent essay to also consider .
It is interesting that ratification was "sidetracked" by the War of 1812 and also occured around the same time that the charter for the First Bank of the US was about to expire.
One of the main concerns seems to have been the "Esquires" allegiance to the Bar and the transition from Common law to Admiralty law .
and to think.. all this time all the work that could have been getting done.
I'm kidding relax
Reason No. MMMCCDXXVII that the states rights are a tthreat to AA rights.
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278