Agreed.

I believe "holding a title" must have referred to a title of nobility or royalty (lord or ladies, etc.) rather than an educational degree.

I expect I can do some basic research and find tons of stuff, I m curious what you re using as base info - care to provide a couple links?

We'll need to see dates of Ratification for every state for this amendment.

So according to that link, there were actually three official documents titled "Amendment 13". The first - which by these records appears to be genuine and appropriately ratified says that those who hold titles or receive moneys from foreign agents are disqualified from holding public office. Boy, wouldn't that throw a major wrench in the works of Campaign Finance Reform laws (and forever bar the Clintons from holding office - among MANY others...)! Can you imagine what would happen if any of those with the title "doctor" (including the juris doctorate) were barred from holding office? More importantly, it would make anyone running for office perform more than a little due diligence on campaign financing - including "speaking" events in foreign nations and fundraising dinners! Personally, I see this as a huge step in the right direction.

The Second would have been the one proposed and signed by President Buchanan, but which it does not appear was ever ratified by the States (due to the interference of the Civil War). Because it was never officially ratified, it can not carry the force of law, but I think one could petition the Supreme Court on whether or not it should have been submitted to the States for ratification.

The Third one (the one everyone currently sees) is the one which officially outlaws slavery (and indentured servitude) in the United States. It should be noted that the ratification of this Amendment is of dubious legal veracity because of the State of the Union at that point. If the Southern States truly did secede (Lincoln argued that that was not within their power to do unilaterally) then their status would not have mattered and the remaining States (primarily the anti-slavery North) would have been the only ones affected. The problem is that when the Southern States were petitioning for representation in the House and Senate again, they were forced to ratify the 13th (and 14th) Amendment. That would have been appropriate if they had actually seceded, but the question still remains if that secession was ever legal... It's quite a mess really.

Actually, it appears that there were THREE 13th Amendments, the two discussed here and another that was in the process of being ratified when the Civil War broke out:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a...

In response to the alternatives, Lincoln and the Republicans threw their support for a 13th Amendment, which would constitutionally enshrine slavery in states allowing that servitude. On March 2, the proposed 13th Amendment was passed as a joint resolution. Each chamber provided the required two-thirds majority with the Senate under the leadership of Republican New York Senator and Lincoln adviser William Seward passing the amendment by 24 to 12, and the House by 133 to 65.

Ohio and Maryland’s legislatures ratified the amendment and Illinois’ state constitutional convention did the same. Had the Civil War not intervened, the proposed 13th Amendment would likely have been ratified by the required three-quarters of the states."

There is a lot of interesting discussion going on about this but I am unable to connect to a link that provides the information on 2 thirteenth amendments. I would like more information

If there is real evidence that this happened, I'd like to see it. (I have looked at allosaur's link and am not convinced.)

Thank you Blarman for asking. I was trying to stir up some interest on the topic of our government. My point is there are two governments in place for the united States of America. There is the original Representative Republic and it's Declaration of independence and Constitution. Then there is the UNITED STATES corporation that is supplying government services. A for profit British corporation with a copy of our.Constitution as it's bylaws. It has tried to move all American citizens into the status of United States citizens(Slaves to the corp) while letting everyone think they still have the rights of American State citizens. If you don't believe me that you have no rights as a United States citizen go into traffic court and claim you constitutional right to travel freely unregulated by the gov. You will be told not to mention that again and asked how do you plead. The good news is you don't have to go into court as an US citizen and can retain your rights.

Me dino went on a hunt as allosaurs are prone to do.
Lincoln erased the original with the second 'un we have now.
The original, which was never legally repealed, states that lawyers, as well as aristocrats, can't hold high offices.
Yay! That should effectively drain the swamp. Maybe that would eject the more than equal elite betters in high office who are not lawyers but act like aristocrats.
The original also says it's okay to have slaves.
Well, of course it is. Just ask the IRS.
Yay!
http://www.usavsus.info/usA--Original...

My link to the 13th amendment article did not work. Please send it to me. thanks

Do you have an article or summation of the issue you can provide? I'm afraid I'm not really following the conversation but I would like to learn more.

Actually there are two constitutions. The original of 1779 and the corporate copy of 1871. "They" just want you to think one replaced the other.

For legal purposes the government presumes everyone to be a United States citizen (We really aren't) and US citizens can accept titles. So no problem there. Glad to see you realize the trickery used to allow voluntary servitude in the corporate amendment.

I've always been one to stir the pot to see what happens. So far the replies have not mentioned the Republic or the United States corporation. The original constitution is still functioning, has thirteen amendments, was adopted in 1779 and can't be used by United States citizens. The copy made by the United States corp. in 1871 allows voluntary servitude, can be used by US citizens and has twenty seven amendments. The corporate version did not replace the original one. And it is possible for US citizens to accept titles of nobility as most of our presidents have done.

Actually, there are two two Thirteenth Amendments. The first of the two two is the one referenced here, prohibiting private citizens from accepting foreign titles. We discussed this here before regarding Donald Trump's many foreign entanglements. However, it could also apply to the Nobel Prizes, and much else. Many of our war veterans were honored by France, Britain, and other allies. Even in times of peace, our military officers have accepted foreign decorations.

It would take appeals court rulings, probably a Supreme Court ruling, to sort it all out...

(The second of the two two was to allow slavery and prevent the federal government from overpowering state laws, though allowing the federal government to rule federal territories.)

If memory serves, one was replaced by the other by Congress to change the verbiage; it was revised. The newer version canceled out the prior replacing it.

One starts with "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ......." the other starts "If any citizen of the United States shall accept,...." I know what is going on here, do you?