Lawyers & Bankers

[Flanders]

There are so many lawyers in Congress, I thought I would open a topic that might interest some of the folks on this board: The Missing 13th Amendment.

Here’s the XIII Amendment everyone is familiar with:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here’s the missing XIII Amendment:

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.

Which 13th Amendment do you prefer? I personally prefer inserting the missing one without repealing or changing the one everyone knows. Just move the later amendments higher by one number. (That is probably too complicated for all of those lawyers in Congress to handle.)

Incidentally, Lincoln signed yet another XIII Amendment that allowed slavery. The Civil War began and that one was forgotten.

The article at the first link is good place to start if you are unfamiliar with the missing XIII Amendment. Should you read it you will understand the title of this thread. Here’s a brief excerpt:

In 1983 David Dodge and Tom Dunn were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records in a Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. They uncovered probably the most explosive evidence ever uncovered in our history. They uncovered the United States Constitution printed in 1825, which was to prohibit lawyers from serving in Government.

Missing 13th Amendment To The United States Constitution
By The Pen
Reprinted from the Oregon Observer for April 1997

Missing 13th Amendment; 16th never ratified!

Even if you do not care to read the entire piece please go to the link and scroll down for some facts about the Income Tax Amendment.

Next

The items on the following list clarify the missing XIII Amendment:

“TITLES OF NOBILITY” AND “HONOR”


- MEANING of the 13th Amendment

[ 1] "TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"
[ 2] MEANING of the 13th Amendment
[ 3] HISTORICAL CONTEXT
[ 4] DON'T BANK ON IT
[ 5] PAPER MONEY
[ 6] CONSPIRACIES
[ 7] TITLES OF NOBILITY
[ 8] INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
[ 9] HONOR
[10] WHAT IF?
[11] PARADISE LOST
[12] RATIFICATION FOUND
[13] THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS
[14] SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL
[15] TO THE ARCHIVES!
[16] Article XIII
[17] SUMMARY
[18] STATE PUBLICATIONS
[19] PUBLICATIONS
[20] DEFINITIONS

The Missing 13th Amendment

You really have to click on each item in the above list to get a handle on the topic; most items are very brief. There are one or two things I don’t agree with, but number 4 is especially interesting. There’s plenty more on the subject that you can find on your own if your curiosity is peaked. Should you require incentive just imagine no lawyers in government.

NOTE: Royalists are still screwing the country not to mention the Constitution. And I’ll bet that you thought Americans won the War for Independence?

Finally, it’s no wonder lawyers who claim they defend the Constitution are busy chipping away at it. They’re afraid the missing XIII Amendment will be implemented. I have a strong hunch that the concept of a “living, breathing, Constitution” was an insurance policy designed to protect against the missing XIII Amendment. If the Constitution is a living, breathing, document, there is no need for constitutional amendments. The only thing you need is judges who are lawyers to begin with. Can you imagine lawyers trying to repeal the missing XIII Amendment if it was implemented today?

 

[Flanders]

How about applying the 13th Amendment to this:

A ruling from Judge Tim L. Garcia in the New Mexico Court of Appeals says states can require Christians to violate their faith in order to do business, affirming a penalty of nearly $7,000 for a photographer who refused to take pictures at a lesbian “commitment” ceremony in the state where same-sex “marriage” was illegal.

Judge’s Cynthia Fry and James Wechsler joined in the ruling by Garcia, which involved Elane Photography, whose owners, Elaine and Jonathan Huegeunin, are Christians and declined to do photography for lesbians Vanessa Willock and another woman.

The women complained under the state’s anti-discrimination requirements and a state commission, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, imposed the penalty, which now has been affirmed by the appeals court judges. The judges explained in the 45-page ruling that the photography company is a “public accommodation” and those cannot discriminate under state law based on “sexual orientation.”

Court: Christians can be ordered to violate beliefs
Refuse to photograph lesbians, get fined $7,000
Published: 10 hours ago
by BOB UNRUH

Refuse to photograph lesbians, get fined $7,000

As I understand it, Elaine and Jonathan Huegeunin were not convicted of a crime in a criminal trial; so they should be protected:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The joke is that Congress and State legislators write legislation that gives the government the power of slave owners. The way things have been going Americans will be better off if the current XIII Amendment is repealed. Clearly, the Income Tax Amendment is a form of slavery, but the government forcing a law abiding individual to work for someone else is abject slavery:

slavery (noun)
plural slaveries

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household. See synonyms at servitude.

2. a. The practice of owning slaves. b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.

3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

Now, suppose Elaine and Jonathan Huegeunin had told the lesbians “Okay, we’ll snap the pictures for $50,000 paid in advance.” Had both parties agreed slavery would not imply.

I do not know what the criminal charge would be if the lesbians still complained about discrimination. Logically, in order for the government to take the case in that scenario the criminal charge would have to be pricing discrimination. The government would then have to refuse the case or set the wages the Huegeunins must accept for their work. That brings us right back to wage slavery. Such an action by the court would enforce the XIII Amendment’s prohibition against slavery.

What does this have to do with the missing XIII Amendment?

1. The people who punished the Huegeunins violated the current XIII Amendment. They are lawyers which makes implementing the forgotten XIII Amendment all the more appropriate.

2. The Attorney General of the United States and his assistants are lawyers, as are most members of Congress. All swear to defend the Constitution. The attorneys general and their assistants in every state are lawyers. Not one of them sees anything wrong with judges ordering forced labor and, by extension, the behavior of law abiding citizens.

3. The fact that so many lawyers are using the power of government to enforce obedience to socialism’s anti-America ideology makes implementing the forgotten XIII Amendment not only appropriate but necessary for America’s survival.

 

[Flanders]

UPDATE #2 permalink

Will this travesty go to the SCOTUS? Even if it does, I doubt if the High Court will hear it:

The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the owners of a photography studio who refused, because of their Christians beliefs, to serve a lesbian couple.

Judges order Christians to work for 'gays'
Court rules photographers must violate religious faith
Published: 14 hours ago
BOB UNRUH

Judges order Christians to work for ?gays?

This case is another example of Socialists in government trying to legislate love. Put the homosexual aspect of the case aside and ask yourself where judges get the authority to dictate behavior?

Judges Edward Chavez, Petra Jimenez Maes, Charles Daniels, Barbara Vigil and Richard Bosson told Elaine and Jonathan Huegeunin who they must work for. That is an extension of the income tax. In effect, the income tax forces every productive American to work for the parasite class. It matters not what the lesbians happen to be, those judges went beyond the income tax when they ordered the Huegeunins to work for people they did not want to work for. Carry the court’s philosophy to its logical conclusion and the government can order anyone to work at anything. Go further and nobody will be allowed to quit a job.

 

[jwoodie]

99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name.

 

[Flanders]

Tom Trinko over at the American Thinker gives a nice analysis of the First Amendment in relation to the legal buzz saw the Huegeunins ran into when they refused to photograph a gay wedding. I especially like this:

The second glaring error is that this decision is content-based. We all know that if a liberal photographer had refused to photograph a neo-Nazi skinhead wedding, the New Mexico Supreme Court would have ruled differently, assuming the case had even come to trial. Even more importantly, note that given the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling, if a gay photographer refused to photograph a Christian wedding, he'd be protected by law because Christians, unlike gays, do not enjoy special status under New Mexico law. No reasonable person can believe that the Constitution supports fundamental rights only for specially protected groups, but not for citizens in general.

August 25, 2013
New Mexico Takes a Stab at Nullifying the Constitution
By Tom Trinko

Articles: New Mexico Takes a Stab at Nullifying the Constitution

 

[oldfart]

Incidentally, Lincoln signed yet another XIII Amendment that allowed slavery. The Civil War began and that one was forgotten.

You are referring to the Crittenden Amendment, which was never formally proposed to the states by Congress. Lincoln referred to it in the First Inaugural Address, stating that while he did not endorse it, he would enforce it if it were adopted. Note that presidents play no role in the amendment process, Congress proposes and states dispose, without the president required to sign anything (although the Constitution also has a provision for states to propose as well, it has never been used).

 

[Moonglow]

so called Christians sold out to business many years ago.

 

[oldfart]

99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name.

1%? That high?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Incidentally, Lincoln signed yet another XIII Amendment that allowed slavery. The Civil War began and that one was forgotten.

You are referring to the Crittenden Amendment, which was never formally proposed to the states by Congress. Lincoln referred to it in the First Inaugural Address, stating that while he did not endorse it, he would enforce it if it were adopted. Note that presidents play no role in the amendment process, Congress proposes and states dispose, without the president required to sign anything (although the Constitution also has a provision for states to propose as well, it has never been used).

"No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State".

This proposed Amendment (#13) was passed by the Congress on March 2, 1861 and was signed by President Lincoln. As correctly noted his signature had no legal significance but given that the Civil War began on April 12, 1861 his signature was likely and effort to prevent the war.