Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spectral Imaging Reveals Jefferson Nixed 'Subjects' for 'Citizens'

Posted by timothy on from the this-is-cooler-than-unredacting-pdfs dept.

Jamie points out this excellent piece, well timed for America's Independence Day, that says spectrographic evidence has established that the one word Thomas Jefferson fully blotted out from an early draft of the Declaration of Independence was not "resident," or "patriot," but rather "subject." This, he replaced with "citizen."

6 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Uh... I see (nt) by Eudial · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    nt

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  2. Re:The Irony is.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  3. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Dracos · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)

    Not to mention that the 16th Amendment's ratification by the States is a fraud. And no, it has nothing to do with irregularities in Ohio's statehood process.

    Of the 36 states required (of 48) to ratify an Amendment in 1913, 11 didn't vote and 33 changed the language. Examples:

    • California's legislature never recorded a vote.
    • The Kentucky House ratified it and sent it to the State Senate, where it was defeated 9-22.
    • The Oklahoma House ratified it, but the State Senate passed a version with an amended, opposite meaning.
    • The Minnesota legislature never sent any documentation of its vote to Washington.

    None of these stopped Secretary of State Philander Knox from declaring the Amendment ratified on Febuary 3, 1913.

  4. Re:When will the government ever learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Grammar correction ETA: 30 seconds.

  5. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    nor has our income tax ever been unconstitutional (i.e. the Constitution allowed it at the time of the tax's inception).

    Wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_%26_Trust_Co. where the Supreme Court basically said direct taxes were unconstitutional.

    There is even some debate on if the 16th amendment really passed correctly.

    While legally it is part of the constitution, it was one of the few additions to the constitution that the Constitution completely opposed. One might make an argument about the 13th amendment, but the constitution never fully supported or rejected slavery, it simply accepted its existence without supporting it.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  6. Your choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    If you die younger and produce less children; I won't have to be concerned about one more congenital paranoid befouling the gene pool.

    yours truly,
    the universe