"Thirteenthers"

[Pangloss]

This comes from an interesting article that was posted by Newsweek a couple of days ago. Apparently there is a movement in this country dating back centuries, but which has been recently resurrected by some conservatives (including the Republican Party of Iowa), to acknowledge an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that is not currently recognized. They claim that the amendment was ratified, and should have become the 13th amendment, but people just "forgot" about it. (No, really.)

 

The amendment itself is interesting, and perhaps sheds some light on their motivation. Though at first blush, it seems fairly harmless, right?

 

“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.”

 

So, one might ask (as I did), what gives? Who cares, right? Well, it turns out that bankers and lawyers might. Now stay with me here, and try not to laugh too hard, because there's something even better coming, I promise!

 

In the United States, the suffix Esq. is most commonly encountered in use among individuals licensed to practice law.[5] This usage applies to both male and female lawyers.[6] The term was assumed by the legal profession, and not granted to it by any governmental authority. Some states also address its ministerial officers (such as justices of the peace, commissioners of deeds, and notaries public) using "Esquire" as a suffix. It is also used in jest; for example, as a way of teasing someone after they have made a remark that could be considered patronizing.

 

Yup, it's all about the bankers and the lawyers -- the root of all evil in America! (This is the historical reason. I'll get to the modern motivation in a moment.)

 

Their reasoning for believing it to be ratified is also interesting. Being something of a history buff, I found it darned intriguing. It's a great example of selecting historical context and sampling. And perhaps a bit of mathematical ignorance?

 

At the time (1810) the amendment, known as the Titles and Nobility Amendment (or "TONA"), was proposed there were 17 states in the union. So (ironically) 13 states (17x0.75=12.75) would have had to pass the amendment in order for it to become ratified.

 

12 states are recorded as having passed it. A 13th state, Virginia, considered the amendment for a very long time, and ultimately passed it. But they passed it in 1819, and by then Louisiana had been added to the union. Since 3/4ths of the states are required to pass an amendment, mathematically this would be 14 states (18x0.75=13.5 -- gotta round up!). (The Newsweek article doesn't mention rounding, but how many times have we all seen people ask why 0.5 is rounded up to 1? It seems possible that some might want to split that hair.)

 

For centuries the "thirteenthers" clung to the notion that the amendment was ratified, because they believed that the number of states in existence at the time the amendment was proposed was what counted, not the number of states at the time it became ratified. While never fully dismissed, this argument has never been given much credence, and in fact when the 27th Amendment passed it did so with mathematics that included all 50 states, even though there were only 13 states when it was proposed.

 

So why now? Ah, well, this is where it gets fun! You see, Republicans are in the business of attacking a certain individual who recently got a "present" from a foreign government -- the Nobel Peace Prize!

The Constitution itself actually prohibits elected officials from accepted gifts (TONA was intended to give that provision teeth), but since President Obama gave the money to charity (mostly low-income housing and Haiti relief), nobody really saw the "title" part of the award as a gift. Well, nobody except these folks. And since TONA would theoretically strip President Obama of his citizenship there's a certain extra irony here, given the popularity of the "birthers" movement in more or less the same crowd.

 

Interesting historical antics aside, I think they're nuts. What do you all think?

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/27/why-some-republicans-want-to-restore-the-13th-amendment.html

[timo]

I think that is just a plot by Germany and Japan who want their top scientists back.

[Moontanman]

In recent years, at the banquet of life, crazy has become the main course....

[insane_alien]

what to you mean 'in recent years'?

 

life is just one big ol' heap of insanity wearing water wings and riding a purple mongoose.

[Moontanman]

Well to me things are getting crazier by the second, the mongoose is begining to grow feathers and fins...

[Sisyphus]

Well, that's extraordinarily silly.

 

So they're claiming this is the "real" 13th amendment? So lawyers (members of the International Bar Association) would be prohibited from serving in government, supposedly. But, that would mean that pretty much every action of government since 1819 has been illegitimate. Since Iowa joined the Union in 1846, then that means it technically doesn't exist. So Iowa Republicans are claiming that they're all frauds. Hmm.

[ewmon]

I know "Esquire" as a title of courtesy, similar "Mister" except for its placement. Thus, a man (who has come of age) is either Mr John Smith or John Smith, Esq, but never Mr John Smith, Esq, which would be redundant. The same holds true for women (that is, Jane Smith, Esq). Any adult can use Esq after his/her name, but mostly lawyers do.

 

With many Americans having received the Nobel Prize (including Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) in various intellectual fields, Thirteeners would be stirring up an awfully big hornet's nest. Then there's Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush Sr who received British knighthoods, and several American war heroes including actor Jimmy Stewart, who were awarded France's Croix de Guerre. I don't know if it counts, but some soldiers who engage in joint exercises with the foreign military receive medals or recognition. I don't know if any of them asked for permission from the USA; I doubt it. This would be insulting many heroic and well-deserving Americans and their families.

 

Because no one has ever questioned/recognized this amendment before, it obviously has no force.

 

IMHO, the Thirteeners, like the Birthers before them, are intolerant people pathetically grasping at straws.

[CharonY]

Also, what would there be described as foreign power? Foreign companies? Grants from non-US science organizations? An US-citizen sent to, say a European branch to work a couple of years there would become eligible to a pension, if he pays taxes there. Certain retired scientists in fact get pensions from half a dozen countries. Even if the whole thing was true it would not hold up in the globalized market.

[Pangloss]

Interesting point. I guess the idea behind politicians not accepting gifts is sound enough, but the constitution is not very specific and its terminology is pretty dated. I'm pretty sure there's a federal law about federal employees receiving gifts, though, so it probably covers that question.

 

By the way, the article mentioned another point that I was getting a bit too long-winded to bring up in the OP, which is that this conspiracy theory has one of those self-perpetuation clauses -- it's lawyers who write the laws, so of course it's lawyers who decide whether this amendment was ratified or not. HMMM!!! ;-)

 

I wonder if Glenn Beck has done a piece on this.

[CharonY]

Heh, I wouldn't be surprised if that this surfaced as an attempt to, say, renounce citizenship of a a recent US politician that got a Nobel price

[Mr Skeptic]

What do you all think?

 

People can't be citizens of the US if they win the Nobel Peace Prize? Delicious!

[swansont]

People can't be citizens of the US if they win the Nobel Peace Prize? Delicious!

 

Any Nobel Prize. Gotta strip all of them of citizenship if they kept the money.

[DJBruce]

Do you think the people arguing that President Obama should be striped of his citizenship, also think Theodore Roosevelt should be striped of his citizenship posthumously since he in fact won the Nobel Peace Prize too?

[Mr Skeptic]

Any Nobel Prize. Gotta strip all of them of citizenship if they kept the money.

 

Oh, it doesn't matter if they kept the money or not. They kept the title didn't they? (Obama gave away the prize money)

[swansont]

Oh, it doesn't matter if they kept the money or not. They kept the title didn't they? (Obama gave away the prize money)

 

Ah yes, of course. I was focusing on the "retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever" clause, but the prize would still be included under "receive or retain any title of nobility or honour."

 

One might argue that the Nobel committee actually bestows it, but the king is present. Not that facts would matter much in this type of argument, if a rabid thirteenther (is that redundant?) were involved

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/award_ceremonies/

[D H]

A 13th state, Virginia, considered the amendment for a very long time, and ultimately passed it. But they passed it in 1819, and by then Louisiana had been added to the union. Since 3/4ths of the states are required to pass an amendment, mathematically this would be 14 states (18x0.75=13.5 -- gotta round up!). (The Newsweek article doesn't mention rounding, but how many times have we all seen people ask why 0.5 is rounded up to 1? It seems possible that some might want to split that hair.)

Minor correction: The threshold at the time Virginia purportedly passed the amendment in 1819 was 16 or 17. After Louisiana achieved statehood in 1812, there were Indiana in 1816, Mississippi in 1817, Illinois in 1818, and Alabama in late 1819. The threshold for passing an amendment was 16 for most of 1819 but bumped up to 17 for the last couple weeks of the year.

 

On the other hand, making it so that the bankers and lawyers, along with all of the PhDs, doctors, dentists, nurses, accountants, etc., are second class citizens at best --- perhaps those wacky thirteenthers are on to something (or at least on something).

Edited August 1, 2010 by D H