American Atheists New Billboard Campaign Stirs Controversy »« And the Award for Chutzpah Goes To…

A New Bizarre Conspiracy Theory from Planet Wingnuttia

Hey look, the wingnuts have a whole new conspiracy theory and this one is truly bizarre. A group of Republican legislators in New Hampshire have submitted a bill, HB 0638, to recognize the true 13th Amendment. You mean the 13th Amendment wasn’t the one that banned slavery? Not according to these halfwits. They think there was an earlier 13th amendment that passed but was not put into the constitution:

III. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, otherwise known as the Act of 1871, created a corporation in the District of Columbia called the United States of America. The act revoked prior legislation relative to the district’s municipal charter and, most egregiously, led to adoption of a fraudulent constitution in which the original Thirteenth Amendment was omitted.

IV. Today, what appears to the public as the United States Constitution is not the complete document, as it was never lawfully amended to remove the Thirteenth Amendment. Instead, the document presented as the United States Constitution is merely a mission statement for the corporation unlawfully established in the Act of 1871.

V. The purpose of this act is to recognize that the original Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits titles of nobility, is properly included in the United States Constitution and is the law of the land. The act is also intended to end the infiltration of the Bar Association and the judicial branch into the executive and legislative branches of government and the unlawful usurpation of the people’s right, guaranteed by the New Hampshire constitution, to elect county attorneys who are not members of the bar. This unlawful usurpation gives the judicial branch control over all government and the people in the grand juries. As long as the original Thirteenth Amendment is concealed from the people, there shall never be justice or a legitimate constitutional form of government.

The bill would also make all attorneys recognized by the bar ineligible for public office, presumably because they get the title “esquire,” which is a title of nobility (but a meaningless honorific, really). And I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear that they’re wrong about the amendment too. That amendment never got ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Comments

  1. iknklast says

    If that amendment gets to go in without the full 2/3 ratification, does that mean we get to put ERA in, as well?

  2. doublereed says

    I’ve heard of the Act of 1871 referred to by libertarians and such, one even showed me a hilariously propagandaish video about it. It seems to link in with the Worldwide Jewish Banking Conspiracy thing. But I couldn’t really understand what the purpose of the Act of 1871 was both in the conspiracy world or otherwise. And they keep referring to it as illegal and an outrage but I never quite understand why (even after watching the video, and trying to google it). I always just get massively confused.

    Can anyone help me out with this? What is the deal with the Act of 1871?

  3. says

    I’m very proud to be from NH, but it has its very special people. We have the nation’s largest legislative body (not just per capita, the largest), so there’s tons of loonies that get into state office. Luckily, there is a percentile advantage of sanity, as demonstrated by being the first state to legalize same sex marriage without a pending lawsuit against the state.

    Smaller communities across the state used to vote for people to get them out of town. Some loon that keeps knocking on your door to tell you Buchanan is selling Florida to Tripoli? Nomination time.

    I’m fairly certain this is still happening. It’s funny, to be sure. This is mild stuff to some of the things coming out of downtown Concord. But funny or not, I wish people would knock it off.

  4. says

    As a recent convert to US citizenship (though a long-time resident) I’ve always felt that for a lot of Americans (possibly most??) the constitution is less of a legal than a magical document: a strange and incomprehensible though powerful talisman written in some long-dead language of the gods. They, like Chaucer’s sumnour, running around, each with their ‘fyr-reed cherubinnes face’ screaming ‘Questio quid iuris’ for all they are worth.

  5. says

    Maybe not so new… this sounds like one of the conspiracy theories propagated by the sovereign citizens movement:

    “At some point in history, sovereigns believe, the American government set up by the founding fathers — with a legal system the sovereigns refer to as “common law” — was secretly replaced by a new government system based on admiralty law, the law of the sea and international commerce. Under common law, or so they believe, the sovereigns would be free men. Under admiralty law, they are slaves, and secret government forces have a vested interest in keeping them that way.”

    (from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement)

    I would not be shocked if there is a connection somewhere.

  6. Crip Dyke, MQ, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    3/4ths of the states is the requirement.

  7. says

    Here is the text of the Titles of Nobility Amendment:

    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.

    I don’t quite see how they come to the conclusion that it would bar “Esquires” from public office. The title has to come from an emperor, king, prince or foreign power to run afoul of the amendment. Attorneys are licensed by states. Even if you got a law degree from a foreign school, you still only become an attorney at law (i.e. “Esquire”) when one or more states license you to practice.

    Oh, wait a minute … these are wingnuts.

  8. Abdul Alhazred says

    Does that mean no more Kentucky Colonel, too?

    Talk about unintended consequences. :)

  9. anubisprime says

    I wonder what Justice Scalia would make of it?

    Be a bit of a hoot if he backed it methinks!

  10. says

    It is not a new argument; it has been around since the mid 1930s.

    According to the Wikipedia, the amendment was proposed in 1810. It was mistakenly declared passed twice, once when the South Carolina Senate (but not House) ratified it and once when the Virginia House (but not Senate) ratified it. In theory, it is still before the states as it was proposed without a sunset clause. It has been ratified by only 12 states, so 26 more are needed.

    The whole point of the modern argument is to invalidate the monopoly of the American Bar Association: conservatives detest it because it demands adherence to the law rather than ideology in judges and the law profession.

  11. says

    This is the whole basis of the Republic of the United States for America, which you wrote about a while back when Randi Shannon dropped out of a state senate race in Iowa, basically handing the race to Democratic incumbent Liz Mathis, in order to be a senator in this pretend country. They also have their own judges and police and are behind a lot of those citizen grand juries you write about.

  12. says

    Wait a minute. Doesn’t the constitution already bar titles of nobility? Article I, Section 9 says,

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

    Why is a titles of nobility amendment needed at all, when the body of the document already prohibits them?

  13. says

    Why is a titles of nobility amendment needed at all, when the body of the document already prohibits them?

    Well, whether it is needed is another matter but the major difference is that under the amendment anyone who accepts such a title automatically loses his/her citizenship and is barred from holding office, while Article I, Section 9 mearely forbids it without providing for any penalty.

  14. says

    Ahmadinejad awaits the return of the hidden 12th Imam. These guys await the return of the hidden 13th Amendment. Coincidence? I think not!

  15. erichoug says

    I am glad that I am not one of these people. I find the plant they come from to be needlessly complicated and pointlessly confusing.

  16. dingojack says

    ‘Esquire’, ‘Knight’ and ‘Baronet’ are titles, but not of nobility, The holders of such titles are commoners.
    Dingo

  17. xmnr says

    Donovan @4, I think you have it backwards. NH may have the largest per capita legislature at 224 members and 1.3 million population, but China (2987), UK (1410), India (790) and the US Congress (541, 535 voting) have larger absolute numbers of members.

    Source: Wikipedia (what else).

  18. dingojack says

    xmnr – ” We [NH} have the nation’s [ie USA's] largest legislative body (not just per capita, the largest)”. [Emphasis and additions, mine].

    Sooooo …. When did India, China & the UK become part of the US – exactly? ;)

    Dingo

  19. xmnr says

    Dingojack – oops mia culpa on the misread. Plus NH has 424 not 224 legislators that I cited.

    However, the US Congress is a legislative body within the nation and is larger.

  20. says

    There’s so much crazy there it’s hard to know where to begin. The Constitution already prohibits the granting of titles of nobility by either the federal government or the states. What would have been the 13th amendment, had it been ratified, would have revoked citizenship and barred from office anyone accepting a title of nobility from a foreign government. Of course it was never ratified so it’s moot. But how they get from there to all the other crazy shit is anyone’s guess.

  21. konrad_arflane says

    ‘Esquire’, ‘Knight’ and ‘Baronet’ are titles, but not of nobility, The holders of such titles are commoners.
    Dingo

    A while back, some other wingnuts made a stink about the appointment of various “Czars” by the Obama administration, citing the “titles of nobility” language. Apart from the facts that “Czar” is not the official title, and that the practice predates the Obama administration by some years, they also appeared oblivious to the fact that “Czar” is off the other end of the nobility scale from “Esquire”. Reality has never mattered to wingnuts.

  22. says

    I almost forgot about the “gold fringe” magical nonsense — thanks, chilidog99! I remember running into it during the late 90′s. This seems to be a popular idea among wingnuts. I’ve tried to track down who came up with it and when, but so far, no such luck. This would be a good discussion topic.

  23. blf says

    “Gold fringe” magical nonsense? Sorry, what’s that? It’s not ringing any bells…

    Via Generalissimo Google™ it seems to be some sort of wacky belief that it makes the courtroom or embassy or whatever either illegal or operating under martial law since such a fringe is not part of the design and is used by the USArmy in parades. What I am not seeing here is any logic

  24. dingojack says

    Guess there won’t be any Coroners then, since they are ‘the Crown’s man’ (ie an employee of the Sovereign).
    Dingo

Leave a Reply