June 23, 2013

The goofiness of fringe groups and agitators continues to creep toward the mainstream. The latest converts are three New Hampshire legislators who introduced a bill to have the state "recognize" the "original 13th Amendment to the Constitution." There was in fact a proposed amendment which would have become the Thirteenth if it had been ratified. It was passed by Congress in 1810, and submitted to the states, but it never was ratified by the required three-fourths of the states. It provided 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.[50]

The issue of divided loyalty by way of foreign offices or benefits already had been covered by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 9.:

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.

It isn’t clear why anyone thought that the amendment was necessary, and in any case, it is a dead letter except among anti-statists, who concoct bizarre theories about its suppression which involve the claims that the United States was converted into a corporation in 1871 (or 1860 or 1861 or 1865 or 1868), that IRS (or is it the Federal Reserve?) is a foreign banking cartel, and on and on. (I discussed these notions on 4/5/10, 4/7/10 and 5/28/10). Here’s the version of that tale included in the New Hampshire bill:

III. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 . . . created a corporation in the District of Columbia called the United States of America. The act . . . led to adoption of a fraudulent constitution in which the original Thirteenth Amendment was omitted.

IV. Today, what appears to the public as the United States Constitution is not the complete document, as it was never lawfully amended to remove the Thirteenth Amendment. Instead, the document presented as the United States Constitution is merely a mission statement for the corporation unlawfully established in the Act of 1871.[51]

The operative section of the bill states that its purpose is to recognize that the original Thirteenth Amendment, "which prohibits titles of nobility, is properly included in the United States Constitution and is the law of the land."

V. . . . The act is also intended to end the infiltration of the Bar Association and the judicial branch into the executive and legislative branches of government and the unlawful usurpation of the people’s right, guaranteed by the New Hampshire constitution, to elect county attorneys who are not members of the bar. This unlawful usurpation gives the judicial branch control over all government and the people in the grand juries. As long as the original Thirteenth Amendment is concealed from the people, there shall never be justice or a legitimate constitutional form of government.

Thirteenthers have two aims in reviving the "lost" amendment: to remove President Obama from office because he received the Nobel Peace Prize and, as shown by the New Hampshire bill, to exclude lawyers from all public offices, including judgeships, because they sometimes are referred to as "Esquire" which, allegedly, is a foreign (British) title. Some support that notion by claiming that "bar," referring to lawyers, stands for British Accreditation Registry (or Royalty or Regency). Here’s one entertaining version: "I do have sound reason to believe that "BAR" in BAR Association stands for "British Accreditation Regency" and that all attorneys are knights for the British or Royal Crown. After all, behind every attorney's name is the title "Esquire" which is a British term."[52] I don’t recall that anyone ever called me Sir Gerald.

One of the sponsors is Rep. Stella Tremblay.[53] This is not her first foray into the anti-government fantasy world. Last year, she sent an email to every member of the state House of Representatives containing a video that claimed that President Obama was not born in the United States. This year, she treated her colleagues to an email claiming that the federal government was behind the Boston Marathon bombing,[54] parroting that allegation by Alex Jones.

One of the sillier notions entertained by those who fear or despise the government is that we still are ruled by Britain. One David Johnson, "who advises Tremblay on historical matters," believes that the U.S. "is now under the control of Queen Elizabeth II."[55] If we have no legitimate Constitution, and it isn’t restored via adopting the lost 13th, where would we look for a statement of fundamentals? Three other New Hampshire legislators addressed that a year or so ago, in a manner consistent with Mr. Johnson’s delusion; their bill would have required that “All members of the general court [Legislature] proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived.”[56]

______________________
50. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
51. http://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB638/id/719435
52. http://www.dhealthstore.com/articles/law-legal/blacks-law-dictionary.html
53. She abruptly resigned from the Legislature a few days ago.
54. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/stella-tremblay-new-hampshire_n_ 3466760.html
55. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/stella-tremblay_n_2791098.html
56. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397520/new-hampshire-gop-bill-mandates- that-laws-find-their-origin-in-1215-english-magna-carta/