U.S v U.S.A , are there 2 constitutions??

[BEYOND TREASON]

Ive come across this and just had to post it here,im not an expert on american history,but some of the information is mind blowing if true!

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/US%20v%20USA/USA_1.html

A corporate constitution,now that would explain alot! if only this can be confirmed as true?!

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. You found a wonderful site full of fictions

first the 14 and 16 amendments WERE ratified... and I could go from there

The problems with the Corporations was when they were given person hood by the USSC well after the Civil War...

I could go on...

[mhr]

4. Read Thom Hartmann's Unequal Protection

www.thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection.shtml

He covers the personhood of corporations quite well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. I know it is in my list of books to get

and I need to read it for the fluff, of the game I am writing.

but the point is, what that site said was not it...

[BEYOND TREASON]

8. Do you agree?

Can i get an agreement that the 13th amendment was ratified?

http://www.freedomdomain.com/miss13th01.html

Surely you cant dispute this,it seems convincing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. First off you surely know that ALL naturalized citizesn

are required to resign ALL foreign titles upon naturalization, except college degrees.

Second off, here is your 13th ammendment

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Third... this may be shocking to you, but as a US citizen, native born or foreign, you need the permision of Congress to receive any foreign honors.

Fourth, if the original 13th ammendment failed, then it did not become an ammendment, hence is not missing, just not ratified, like the Equal Rights Ammedment.

That is how the system works, they are not ratified... they were proposed and not ratified.

[BEYOND TREASON]

10. How do you explain this?

Apparently persuaded by Dodge's various arguments and proofs that the "missing" 13th Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional requirements for ratification, Mr. Hartgrove (National Archives) wrote back that Virginia had nevertheless failed to satisfy the bureaucracy's procedural requirements for ratification:

"Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United States is empowered to certify that he has in his custody the correct number of state certificates of ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States of America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was performed by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a Certificate of Ratification of the Title of Nobility Amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that Amendment failed to become the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
This is an extraordinary admission.

Mr. Hartgrove implicitly conceded that the 13th Amendment was ratified by Virginia and satisfied the Constitution's ratification requirements. However, Hartgrove then insists that the ratification was nevertheless justly denied because the Secretary of State was not properly notified with a "Certificate of Ratification." In other words, the government's last, best argument that the 13th Amendment was not ratified boils down to this: Though the Amendment satisfied the Constitutional requirement for ratification, it is nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply because a single, official sheet of paper is missing in Washington. Mr. Hartgrove implies that despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in the Union voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators and the people of this Nation should be denied because somebody screwed up and lost a single "Certificate of Ratification." This "Certificate" may be missing because either:

1. Virginia failed to file a proper notice, or;

2. the notice was "lost in the mail"; or;

3. the notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C..

This final excuse insults every American's political rights, but Mr. Hartgrove nevertheless offers a glimmer of hope: If the National Archives -
"... received a Certificate of Ratification of the Title of Nobility Amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we would inform Congress and await further developments."
In other words, the issue of whether this 13th Amendment was ratified and is, or is not, a legitimate Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not merely a historical curiosity - the ratification issues is still alive. 2/*

But most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining argument against the 13th Amendment's ratification is a procedural error involving the absence of a "Certificate of Ratification."

Dodge countered Hartgrove's procedure argument by citing some of the ratification procedures recorded for other States when the 13th Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the Journal of the House of Representatives, (1lth Congress, 2nd Session, at p. 241), a " letter" (not a "Certificate of Ratification") from the Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio's ratification was submitted not to the Secretary of State, but rather to the House of Representatives where it "was read and ordered to lie on the table." Likewise, "The Kentucky ratification was also returned to the House, while Maryland's earlier ratification is not listed as having been returned to Congress."

The House Journal implies that since Ohio and Kentucky were not required to notify the Secretary of State of their ratification decisions, there was likewise no requirement that Virginia file a "Certificate of Ratification" with the Secretary of State. Again, despite arguments to the contrary, it appears that the "missing" Amendment was Constitutionally ratified and should not be denied because of some possible procedural error.

http://www.freedomdomain.com/miss13th01.html

(Mods if this post is to long,please delete it)

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Quite simple, it was never ratified

hence it never became law.

Again I refer to the Equal Rights Amendment, never ratified, never became law.

It is simple, very simple, not missing, just not ratified. It is mostly a historical curiosity cited by either extreme right wingers or Specialists in the early Republic. Oh and by the way the impetus originally was the Adamn's presidency.

[Journeyman]

15. There was another 13th amendment, proposed when Mr Lincoln. . .

had won the Presidency but not yet been inaugurated. Determined to avoid civil war if at all possible, the Republicans and Mr Lincoln proposed an amendment that guaranteed slavery and forbade the federal government from interfering with the institution in those States where it was established. Like this "lost" 13th amendment, it too was narrowly passed by the Senate and House -- and was supported by the newly-elected Executive -- but it was never sent to the States for ratification for the War came instead and swept it into the dustbin of all the failed schemes proposed to preserve that critically flawed Constitution that permitted the stain of slavery on the land.

And as you point out, nadinbrzezinski, failure to ratify this amendment -- along with all the other amendments that have been proposed through the years but never formally approved and adopted -- doesn't leave them "missing" or "lost," it just means they're political ephemera, historical litter with no bearing beyond their value as trivia. Oh, the issue may be raised again (the foreign titles question, not the resumption of slavery -- Mr Lincoln saw that issue resolved for ever), but until it is there's no weight to its consideration and no sense to bewailing its fate.

[Toots]

16. Doesn't seem to apply to Indian Sovereignty issues

American Indians have duel citizenship which is in direct violation of the thirteenth amendment. It is also in direct violation of the Indian citizenship Act of 1924 but so what? American Indians have rights other americans do not possess. They can for instance take marine mammals against the marine mammal act. They can take possession of walrus ivory which is strictly illegal for other Americans or any other nationality for that matter except Native Americans. Some constitutional laws are only good for "certain people". Some people are above the law...

[youngblue]

2. The people that make that argument

are the far right wing militia folks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Well there is that too

[tx_dem41]

6. Whoever started that site went to a lot of trouble to sell tin-foil. n/t

[UDenver20]

7. Run. Fast. Very fast.

Before they offer you kool-aid

[Fritz67]

12. Pardon the phrase, but Jesus...

..that shit makes my head hurt.

It mostly reads like a pile of Militia crap to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. It is

[Fritz67]

14. Yeah...

Notice how according to them everything started to go "wrong" during the Civil War? When that uppity Lincoln fellow actually freed the slaves and started us down the dangerous road of (gasp) starting to take that stuff about being "Created Equal" seriously?

Yeah...America became an "illegal" country once it started to realize that people other than rich white Protestant men had rights. :sarcasm: