The Missing 13th Amendment: David Dodge, Researcher Alfred Adask, Editor
Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825) In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.
So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.
In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.
Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.
The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance.
THE MEANING of the 13th Amendment
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads 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."
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.
Not so.
Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.
this conclusion more or less appears to be based upon generally accepted staistical evidence, as well as annecdotal evidence, albeit, still not an open and shut case, but more solid than mere assumptions, and a more widely held belief, I would also state that saying IE is poorly coded is not the proper wording, there are clearly top notch code monkeys at MS, it seems to be a function/result of the Bill and Steve team to create and enforce their own bastardized web standards, as opposed to "actual" standards (W3 etc) which leave holes and work arounds beyond what the strict well-thought out standards would permit.
see, that's the kind of thing wrong with (clearly) a certain sub-set of mods around here, this is obviously a +5 Funny, and it gets modded -1 - 'plain Lucy, please...
is this not an occasion where RICO charges could be laid - calling from Canad so I am not necessarily familiar with the US laws and legal system, but some knowledgable/. er should be able to jump in here with a reasonably edumakated guess as to whether or not RICO could or should be brought into play here... we've all been around the block, and we all nudge nudge wink wink know how things are, but corporations MUST be brought to heel, as well as politicians from time to time... as well as law enforcemen agencies... we the people have a duty and obligation to ourselves and our public servants "keep them honest", and have them keep honest our corprations who live behind a shroud and veil... of obscurity and private enterprise...
we need a lot of carbon for the nanotube elevator cable, start storing this stuff up, and cranking out the production line... in the event that the current tech is not up to it, just make what we can and stockpile it, until technology catches up and we can put the hundreds of thousands of tonnes required to ggod use, and keep that carbon out of our greenhouse cycle...
Slashdot Mirror
The Missing 13th Amendment:
David Dodge, Researcher Alfred Adask, Editor
Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825) In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.
So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.
In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.
Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.
The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance.
THE MEANING of the 13th Amendment
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads 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."
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.
Not so.
Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
this conclusion more or less appears to be based upon generally accepted staistical evidence, as well as annecdotal evidence, albeit, still not an open and shut case, but more solid than mere assumptions, and a more widely held belief, I would also state that saying IE is poorly coded is not the proper wording, there are clearly top notch code monkeys at MS, it seems to be a function/result of the Bill and Steve team to create and enforce their own bastardized web standards, as opposed to "actual" standards (W3 etc) which leave holes and work arounds beyond what the strict well-thought out standards would permit.
see, that's the kind of thing wrong with (clearly) a certain sub-set of mods around here, this is obviously a +5 Funny, and it gets modded -1 - 'plain Lucy, please ...
is this not an occasion where RICO charges could be laid - calling from Canad so I am not necessarily familiar with the US laws and legal system, but some knowledgable /. er should be able to jump in here with a reasonably edumakated guess as to whether or not RICO could or should be brought into play here ... we've all been around the block, and we all nudge nudge wink wink know how things are, but corporations MUST be brought to heel, as well as politicians from time to time ... as well as law enforcemen agencies ... we the people have a duty and obligation to ourselves and our public servants "keep them honest", and have them keep honest our corprations who live behind a shroud and veil ... of obscurity and private enterprise ...
we need a lot of carbon for the nanotube elevator cable, start storing this stuff up, and cranking out the production line ... in the event that the current tech is not up to it, just make what we can and stockpile it, until technology catches up and we can put the hundreds of thousands of tonnes required to ggod use, and keep that carbon out of our greenhouse cycle ...
Death by Chocolate ? I've heard that somewhere before ...
Hex 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
and allowing for keeping everyone happy in the "habitable" - life-supporting temperature - liquid water zone?
would not the correct term be a tokenring world?
since radius=5000 ergo diameter=10000, then would not circumference be 31415.926536? oops, forgot 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0