Pitting the Republican Party of Texas

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It's hard to say what direction they're going for here. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. And they want to repeal that? Even for Texas, that seems a little extreme.

Nobody wants to repeal it. Why they want this Amendment in, I don't really know. It's the one about accepting foreign gifts or offices.

"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."

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Shakes

I read an article once (Sorry can't remember where) about the similarities of Republican doctrines and the dontrines of extreme Muslims. After reading that article I wondered why republicans don't hail extreme Muslims as the greatest thing ever.

I have a cousin in Kentucky who is one of those compulsive e-mail forwarders. Last year he sent me something on the evils of Sharia Law and since he was a fundamentalist Christian and extremely right wing politically, I told him he should like rather than fear Sharia Law. I even pointed out many of the similarities.

Of course, I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but he never saw the humor at all and got his nose out of joint.

Maybe Muslims need to market Sharia by another name in the deep south. Call it God's Law, or something.

[Reyemile]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Nobody wants to repeal it. Why they want this Amendment in, I don't really know. It's the one about accepting foreign gifts or offices.

"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."

It SOUNDS like they want to repeal it. But then again, given their stance on education, it doesn't surprise me at all that they didn't proofread.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Nobody wants to repeal it. Why they want this Amendment in, I don't really know. It's the one about accepting foreign gifts or offices.

It's hard to say. When they write "We call for the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th Amendment in today’s Constitution." it sounds like they want the Titles of Nobility Amendment to replace the Involuntary Servitude Amendment. What else does "not the 13th Amendment in today's Constitution" mean? If I said "I want to go on vacation to Hawaii, not Las Vegas" you wouldn't think I meant I wanted to go on vacation to Hawaii in addition to Las Vegas.

If their actual intent is to have a Titles of Nobility Amendment enacted and leave the Involuntary Servitude Amendment alone, why not simply say "We call for the reintroduction and ratification of the Title of Nobility Amendment of 1810"?

As for the reason, it's apparently mostly directed at lawyers. Some people feel that the use of "esquire" by lawyers is a "title of nobility or honour". What exactly anti-lawyer people feel would be accomplished by eliminating the word esquire eludes me.

[Little Nemo]

And apparently it doesn't need to be re-introduced. The original proposal just said it would go into effect when a three-quarters majority of states ratified it. No deadline was given. Twelve states had ratified it between 1810 and 1812 but then it just sort of faded away. Five states voted against it. But the other thirty-three states have apparently never voted on this amendment (including Texas and Iowa so who are they to be pointing fingers?). The amendment currently needs a total of thirty-eight votes so if twenty-six more states ratified it, it would be enacted.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

They mean the Titles of Nobility Amendment. Sometimes contards invoke it to say lawyers, who use the title of "Esquire," should be ineligible for public office. There is even a meme that this amendment really was ratified but that news was somehow "suppressed" or the amendment was "unlawfully removed".

At least, I think that's what the Iowa GOP is talking about. There was another almost-13th-Amendment.

The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress, 2nd Session, on March 2, 1861, in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. It would forbid subsequent attempts to amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to "abolish or interfere" with the "domestic institutions" of the states, including "persons held to labor or service" (a reference to slavery).

Ohio Republican Representative Thomas Corwin offered the amendment in an attempt to forestall the secession of Southern states. Corwin's resolution emerged as the House of Representatives's version of an earlier, identical proposal in the Senate offered by New York Republican Senator William H. Seward. However, the newly formed Confederate States of America was committed to independence and so it ignored the Corwin Amendment.

This proposed amendment is still pending before the state legislatures for ratification, because Congress submitted it to the state legislatures without a deadline. Since the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery was adopted in 1865, the Corwin Amendment lost whatever momentum it had.

Or maybe not . . .

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Same reason early Christians denounced Marcion as a "son of hell." Exclusivist religions hate those almost like them, whose made-up but supposedly deathly important theological claims are a little bit different.

Well, come on! Cut 'em some slack! That was no common heresy, we're talking about a religion from Mars here!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

I have a cousin in Kentucky who is one of those compulsive e-mail forwarders. Last year he sent me something on the evils of Sharia Law and since he was a fundamentalist Christian and extremely right wing politically, I told him he should like rather than fear Sharia Law. I even pointed out many of the similarities.

Of course, I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but he never saw the humor at all and got his nose out of joint.

Good. Keep doing it.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

...If their actual intent is to have a Titles of Nobility Amendment enacted and leave the Involuntary Servitude Amendment alone, why not simply say "We call for the reintroduction and ratification of the Title of Nobility Amendment of 1810"?...

Because they are not the brightest bulbs on the string?

FYI, the 13th Amendment thing is part of the Iowa Republican Party Platform, which IMO, impossible as it seems to believe, is is even crazier than the Texas one. YMMV.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

As for the reason, it's apparently mostly directed at lawyers. Some people feel that the use of "esquire" by lawyers is a "title of nobility or honour". What exactly anti-lawyer people feel would be accomplished by eliminating the word esquire eludes me.

Apparently, it would invalidate our whole legal system. Or something.

The orginal intent was something like this:

There is speculation that the Congress proposed the amendment in response to the 1803 marriage of Napoleon Bonaparte's younger brother, Jerome, and Betsy Patterson of Baltimore, Maryland, who gave birth to a boy for whom she wanted aristocratic recognition from France.[1] The child, named Jérôme Napoleon Bonaparte, was not born in the United States, but in Great Britain on July 7, 1805—nevertheless, he would have held U.S. citizenship through his mother. Another theory is that his mother actually desired a title of nobility for herself and, indeed, she is referred to as the "Duchess of Baltimore" in many texts written about the amendment. The marriage had been annulled in 1805—well before the amendment's proposal by the 11th Congress. Nonetheless, Representative Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina is recorded to have said, when voting on the amendment, that "he considered the vote on this question as deciding whether or not we were to have members of the Legion of Honor in this country."[7]

However:

The assertion that TONA was validly ratified has never been upheld by any court in the United States. In the few instances in which courts have been confronted with the assertion that TONA was indeed ratified, judges have brushed those claims aside. In Campion v. Towns, No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2005), a tax protester raised TONA as one of his defenses to a charge of tax evasion.[12] The court replied that it would "correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution":

In another case, Sibley v. Culliver, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1283 (M.D. Ala. 2003), aff'd 377 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2004), a federal appellate court found that the defendant's invocation of TONA worked to his detriment. The court took note of documents produced by the defendant, a convicted murderer who submitted documents in support of his appeal claiming that TONA rendered his conviction invalid:

The Sibley court dismissed the appeal, concluding in part that the defendant was simply not seeking relief through the courts.

FTR, the American Bar Association is not a monopoly of any kind, legal or illegal. You have to be a member of a state Bar to practice law in that state -- active Bar membership is identical with licensing (if you're licensed in another state, you can move to be permitted to appear in a case pro hac vice, but that motion, if granted, only applies to that particular case). The ABA is just a club, or, if you prefer, a professional association, but membership in it has nothing to do with licensing. I'm not an ABA member and I don't know any lawyer who is.

[waterj2]

From what I've managed to gather, there's always been a fringe group of anti-“equire” wierdos pushing for the Titles of Nobility Amendment, and claiming on rather spurious grounds that it's official (it has gathered the ratification of 3/4 of the states that were in the union at the time it was proposed, although it has never been ratified by 3/4 of the states in existence at any given time). However, it's current popularity is basically to claim that it's unconstitutional for Barack Obama to have accepted the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by waterj2

However, it's current popularity is basically to claim that it's unconstitutional for Barack Obama to have accepted the Nobel Peace Prize.

Really? Would it apply to any American who won a Nobel Prize?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by waterj2

From what I've managed to gather, there's always been a fringe group of anti-“equire” wierdos pushing for the Titles of Nobility Amendment, and claiming on rather spurious grounds that it's official (it has gathered the ratification of 3/4 of the states that were in the union at the time it was proposed . .

Actually, it didn't.

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.[1] 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.[1]

There is a further misapprehension that the TONA was—at all stages in the ratification process—just one state's adoption shy of being incorporated into the United States Constitution.[1]

When the TONA was offered by the Congress to the state legislatures on May 1, 1810, the approval of 13 of them would indeed have been required. However, with the addition of Louisiana into the Union on April 30, 1812, that threshold increased to 14 state approvals. Louisiana's statehood commenced after the Massachusetts ratification of the TONA, but prior to the New Hampshire ratification of it. Then, when Indiana was admitted on December 11, 1816, the bar was raised up to 15 approvals needed to ratify the TONA. Although the admission of Mississippi on December 10, 1817, did not increase the numerical requirement, the entry of Illinois on December 3, 1818, did elevate that minimum to 16 state adoptions necessary for the TONA to be incorporated into the Constitution.[1]

The term "Thirteenthers" is sometimes used to refer to those who mistakenly believe this amendment was ratified or to those who would like to see ratification of this proposed amendment.[2][10]

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Really? Would it apply to any American who won a Nobel Prize?

There are many hard choices in life. Nobel Prize or U.S. citizenship. Can't have 'em both. Gotta pick one. Pick now! Now! Or we'll revoke your Pulitzer!

[Little Nemo]

Ronald Reagan was made a Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath by the United Kingdom and awarded the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Chrysanthemum by Japan. Presumably his American citizenship will be revoked.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

FYI, the 13th Amendment thing is part of the Iowa Republican Party Platform, which IMO, impossible as it seems to believe, is is even crazier than the Texas one. YMMV.

You are correct. My apologies to Texas.

In my defense, I'll note that the Texas Republican Party platform is calling for a good chunk of constitutional amending. They want:

* A marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman
* A Human Life Amendment declaring an unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed
* A Parental Rights Amendment declaring no laws shall not be enacted that limit parental rights in the rearing of both biological and adopted children
* Repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment with the goal of abolishing the IRS
* Plus a couple of amendments to the Texas Constitution

[pikey pete]

I live in Texas...I would like to take a moment and personally apologize for the idiots in my state. I agree with only two things they said: corporal punishment (hey, it worked when I was in school, even if I do have the occasional nightmare of being chased by nuns brandishing yardsticks like katanas,) and the personal accountability and responsibility. Unfortunately I think I have a different definition of 'accountability and responsibility.' I think its a great idea to have people take responsibility when they screw up and be willing to be held accountable for their actions. The sad truth is though that these days, everyone has an excuse.

In regards to the education issues, the GOP is getting tired of being told that creationism, no matter how you dress it up, isn't science. I personally endose 'teaching the controversy.' We should teach our young people Lamarckian and Spencerian evolution alongside Darwinian evolution. That way they can identify the difference between good science and bad science.

I also think that every week, in every public school, they should have a morning announcement concerning the differences between a theory, a hypothesis, and made-up-bullshit-mythology.

[Bridget Burke]

However, despite Idiot Perry's "misstatement" during his abortive run for the Nomination, Creationism or Intelligent Design are not taught in Texas Public Schools! It's Darwin all the way. I'm sure those historical failed theories theories are mentioned at the beginning of the course. Long ago, we learned about Lamarck (even in La Marque) & that Commie Lysenko. But they weren't taught "alongside" the stuff we needed to learn to pass Biology....

We've been laughing through our tears at the various Texas Republican Platforms for years now. The idiots have had some successes--like cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, endangering medical care to low income women. But most of that crap is simply bloviating, aimed at the cheap seats....

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by pikey pete

I also think that every week, in every public school, they should have a morning announcement concerning the differences between a theory, a hypothesis, and made-up-bullshit-mythology.

There should be a full-length course dealing with this (and other aspects of critical thinking), mandatory in every high school in the country.

Of course, there are lots of legislators in Texas and elsewhere who'd pop a gasket at the thought of their favorite bullshit being skewered.

[CalMeacham]

Boy, if that TONA Amendement were passed, we'd have to vilify the Revolutionary War major-general and hero William Alexander, who claimed to be Scottish Lord Stirling (and was so called by the army), instead of simply ignoring him the way we do now


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Stirling

[R. P. McMurphy]

I want a clarification on the corporal punishment is the schools thing. As a parent I know that spanking on the butt doesn't work. However, a baseball bat to the face really gets their attention.

Let's not go halfway here. Let's get the job done.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by R. P. McMurphy

I want a clarification on the corporal punishment is the schools thing. As a parent I know that spanking on the butt doesn't work. However, a baseball bat to the face really gets their attention.

Let's not go halfway here. Let's get the job done.

:shakes head: The Irish are ruining our country.

[Boyo Jim]

The Irish wouldn't touch a baseball bat. They use hurleys on their kids.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by pikey pete

corporal punishment

Doesn't work.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Doesn't work.

So long as it makes the parents feel better, who cares if it works for the kids.

[prettyricky66]

Get some serious earth moving equipment and separate Texas from the rest of the country. Allow them to split from the continent, push them out into the Gulf of Mexico. Texas can soak up excess oil from the BP oil spill and serve as a natural barrier during hurricane season. Think about it...they don't care about the environment, we won't have to pay for their healthcare because they'll insist that everyone pray their way to good health. I don't see any losers here.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

Boy, if that TONA Amendement were passed, we'd have to vilify the Revolutionary War major-general and hero William Alexander, who claimed to be Scottish Lord Stirling (and was so called by the army), instead of simply ignoring him the way we do now

Not to mention all the people who swore allegiance to the confederacy during the Civil War. Since they would not be citizens, their offspring wouldn't be either. We could pretty much purge the voting roles of anyone whose ancestors fought against the union.