I Smell a Rat

8575513860?profile=original

If the Titles of Nobility Amendment had been lawfully ratified as some people claim, would we the people be better off?

The purpose of the amendment was to prevent the rise of an aristocracy in the United States. The founders did not want a privileged class to be able infiltrate our government. They wanted every white man to be equal under the law.

They did not want government officials to be able to receive gifts or emoluments in exchange for political favors. Today foreign nations and Wall Street corporations contribute tens of millions of dollars to candidates running for office. Who with these politicians represent after they are elected?

Financial institutions that donate money to help get their puppets elected are doing so in order to get special benefits and privileges.

The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,[1][2] that not only forbids the United States from granting titles of nobility, but restricts members of the government from receiving gifts from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress. This clause is also sometimes called the "federal" Nobility Clause,[3] because a similar clause in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 bars the states (rather than the federal government) from granting titles of nobility. The Title of Nobility Clause is also one of the clauses that is sometimes called the "Emolument Clause".[4]

 

There were 17 states when the proposed 13th Amendment was presented to the states. In order to be properly ratified 13 states would need to vote for ratification. It seems reasonable that if 87 out of the 90 members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of the proposed amendment, it would follow that getting the approval of 13 states be likely.

The only states that had a right to vote on ratification were the 13 states that existed in 1810. The amendment is still pending and if Virginia officially voted today the Amendment would be lawfully ratified.

The originally proposed second amendment failed to be ratified in 1791 and 101 years later the same amendment was repackaged as the 27th Amendment thus making it necessary to obtain the approval of three-fourths of the 50 states.

The only thing preventing the implementation of this amendment is the BAR Association attorneys who have a vested interest in perpetuating the fraud.

The fact that the original 13th amendment is not being enforced benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Do the BAR Association attorneys have rights, privileges and immunities that are not granted to others? Do the same criminals who write our laws, interpret our laws and prosecute the offenders all belong to the same fraternity known as the BAR Association?

 

You need to be a member of Constitution Club - 2020 Vision 4 America to add comments!

Join Constitution Club - 2020 Vision 4 America

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Those who can't reason avoid inconvenient truths, simply and clearly stated. On the possibility that the blind may see, the conditional language of TONA has been made large and bolded.


    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.


    Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

    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.


    Why does the original poster fail to address the inconvenient language?

    • Congress is supposed to represent the people, not the bankers, lawyers and corrupt politicians. If the people believe that our representatives are giving their consent to unconstitutional legislation it is the duty of the people to withdraw our consent and throw the bums out.

    • Richard,

      The Constitution already prohibits government officials from accepting bribes(emoluments), but the Constitution does not specify what the penalty would be for doing so.

      The 13th Amendment was proposed to cause any violator to lose their citizenship and their right to hold an office in the government.

      Your are correct the phrase "without the consent of Congress" gives Congress the power to do whatever they want and that is exactly what they are doing.

      Apparently you like how our government is functioning/ I guess you have no problems with a few BAR Association attorneys having rights, privileges and immunities that "We the People" do not.

      • There you go again. You just make stuff up out of thin air.

        An emolument is not a bribe. (You made the statement. Prove it.) Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit the crime of bribery or any other crime except treason.

        Making A = B = C = D is not an argument, it's a sign of irrationality.

        Maybe you should read the state constitutions, because the federal constitution doesn't even mention attorneys or bar associations.

        Go ask one of your heroes, like Badnarik or Griffin, what they think of your reasoning.

    • When a person gives as government employee a gift or campaign contribution he is doing so in order to receive something in exchange. It doesn't matter if you call it a gift, a bribe or an emolument is just another name for a bribe.

    • I'm not sure, but in the above quotes from within the Constitution regarding the "... Consent of Congress", and reference to "foreign power" and "foreign state" reflect the fact that Washington DC is, by definition, a foreign state?
    • This message is available online at http://www.WantToKnow.info/g/prison-industrial-complex

    • In December 2012, a gunman killed 20 children, six adults, and himself at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The event caught the entire country's ...

      2014_SchoolShootingsSinceNewtown1.png

         Too many targets r schools
  • Boy, we sure do need it!

  • read Occums Razor n apply to most all gov't lies

This reply was deleted.