This website claims that a different 13th Amendment was ratified in 1819, but for some reason was never recognized: http://www.amendment-13.org/index.html
OK, so are these people full of it or not? The page makes some convincing arguments as to why the amendment really did pass, but I have a hard time believing that it could just be forgotten like this. Certainly it could still pass if enough states decided to ratify it like they did with the 27th Amendment, and they’d probably have a better chance of getting it passed if they went that route. But that’s not what they’re arguing.
It’s a myth, propagated by the lunatic fringe. Idiot Legal Arguments does a nice job of debunking it, although in a rather densely packed format - just go to the site and scroll down a little bit.
Northern Piper, that site is dense as to be unreadable. Most of the listings are 80% legal citations with sparse commentary. If that’s what lawyers have to wade through, I feel for them. APL is a marvel of readability compared to that.
I clerked for a state circuit judge in Lexington, Kentucky this past summer and we had a defendant who moved for recusal of the judge or any other judge who could possibly hear the case because he considered “Judge” and “Esquire” to be at least an “honour” but quite possibly a “title of nobility” as well and that the “real” 13th Amendment barred his prosecution. He further argued that because of the use of such titles the entire American legal system is unconstitutional. We had a good laugh over that one. Northern Piper correctly pointed out that only the lunatic fringe believes in the existence of a “secret” 13th Amendment. Incidentally, the motion drafted by our defendant was written by a legendary local jailhouse lawyer who is a proud member of the Kentucky Militia.
Why would that need an amendment anyways? There was a recent thread about whether an American Pope would lose their citizenship by taking that post. The relevant bit being that it is just a normal law revoking the citizenship: 8 USC 1481: “Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen”.
A. Did Virginia ratify? No. Inclusion of the federal Constitution with an erroneous amendment attached within a digest of state laws is NOT equivalent to ratification.
B. If Virginia DID ratify in 1819, was this sufficient to ratify the amendment? No. This has never formally been litigated, but 200 years of precedents and practice (as well as common sense) suggest that as new states are admitted: (a) they have the right to participate in ratification of any pending amendments; and (b) their admission raises the bar necessary to reach the 3/4 threshold.
Consequently, if Virginia ratified at any time after the admission of Louisiana as the 18th state in 1812, her ratification was no longer sufficient to complete the process.
If the amendment had been ratified, what would have been the impact? Damn little. Article I Section 9 of the Constitution already applies similar language to federal office holders. Note the wiggle room about “without the consent of Congress”. Congress makes the necessary exemptions to allow Presidents, for example, to exchange gifts with foreign heads of state.
If this amendment had been ratified, we would undoubtedly see similar exemptions for things like Nobel prizes (if in fact these are funded in any way by the Swedish government; otherwise, the amendment wouldn’t apply anyway.)
As far as judges are concerned–Huh? The Constitution already forbids the United States from granting titles of nobility. If “Your Honor” is such a title (obviously, it isn’t), it’s already a violation and this unratified amendment need not come into play.
Crafter_Man - I think the point was that the Kentucky Militia is one of those well-known anti-government groups.
From the site of the Anti-Defamation league:
The site also mentions threats of violence made by Mr. Puckett against socialists in the USA.
If I understand correctly, then, the Kentucky State Militia and the Kentucky National Guard are two different organizations, the former unofficial, the latter official?
Cliffy, he was indeed quite disappointed. He was convicted of first degree assault and third degree persistent felony offender. He was basically your garden variety violent alcoholic, but when he was sober he apparently was friendly, generous, and witty. He was doomed from the beginning in our case, though. They evidence on the assault was pretty strong and he decided to proceed pro se (although the judge made him at least have a licensed stand-by counsel).
Arnold, thanks for the cite. I’ve heard about Puckett and that the Kentucky Militia is a dangerous group but that’s about it. My point, which I didn’t make very clear, was that knowing the Militia’s background it wasn’t surprising that the jailhouse Dershowitz was a member.
Guin and jk, I don’t get it either, but that was his argument. Strange and bizarre, I know.
