Satire: Glenn Beck raped a girl in 1990?

[Lonestar_logic]

Beck was certainly wrong about that "importation" at $10.00 per person provision of the Constitution ["Article I, Section 9, Clause 1"]. Before spouting off about it, yes, he really ought to have taken some efforts to grasp what it was actually addressing. And yes, it was addressing the topic of slavery. And no, Beck didn't seem to know that rather important fact.

So, perhaps it's just as well that I don't watch his show. The one 'episode' I did catch was not half bad, however.

I would not recommend that conservatives accept Beck as a source of news (in the way that so many libs seem to think Jon Liebowitz Stewart and Bill scumbag Maher are sources of news).

That doesn't mean that Beck doesn't have a capacity to be interesting and maybe even a tiny bit informative from time to time.

Tell me where in Article 1 section 9 it addresses slavery.

LII: Constitution

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

What do you think "importation of such persons" is referring to?

Indentured servants. As my great great great grandfather was.

 

[Article 15]

Tell me where in Article 1 section 9 it addresses slavery.

LII: Constitution

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

What do you think "importation of such persons" is referring to?

Indentured servants. As my great great great grandfather was.

And slaves.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What do you think "importation of such persons" is referring to?

Indentured servants. As my great great great grandfather was.

And slaves.

Well technically an indentured servant is a slave. So what's the argument? How exactly did Beck lie?

 

[Article 15]

Indentured servants. As my great great great grandfather was.

And slaves.

Well technically an indentured servant is a slave. So what's the argument? How exactly did Beck lie?

Yes, they are and so were the imported people from Africa. It covers them all.

I don't even know what the argument is. You asked where it addressed slavery. I showed you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And slaves.

Well technically an indentured servant is a slave. So what's the argument? How exactly did Beck lie?

Yes, they are and so were the imported people from Africa. It covers them all.

I don't even know what the argument is. You asked where it addressed slavery. I showed you.

Then you would agree that, that portion of the constitution doesn't specify or differentiate bewtween an african slave or an indentured servant.

 

[Article 15]

Well technically an indentured servant is a slave. So what's the argument? How exactly did Beck lie?

Yes, they are and so were the imported people from Africa. It covers them all.

I don't even know what the argument is. You asked where it addressed slavery. I showed you.

Then you would agree that, that portion of the constitution doesn't specify or differentiate bewtween an african slave or an indentured servant.

Not in the way I'm reading it.

 

[Liability]

Beck was certainly wrong about that "importation" at $10.00 per person provision of the Constitution ["Article I, Section 9, Clause 1"]. Before spouting off about it, yes, he really ought to have taken some efforts to grasp what it was actually addressing. And yes, it was addressing the topic of slavery. And no, Beck didn't seem to know that rather important fact.

So, perhaps it's just as well that I don't watch his show. The one 'episode' I did catch was not half bad, however.

I would not recommend that conservatives accept Beck as a source of news (in the way that so many libs seem to think Jon Liebowitz Stewart and Bill scumbag Maher are sources of news).

That doesn't mean that Beck doesn't have a capacity to be interesting and maybe even a tiny bit informative from time to time.

Tell me where in Article 1 section 9 it addresses slavery.

LII: Constitution

That's what they were addressing in that provision:

SECTION 9. Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such
Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year
one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may
be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for
each Person.
IN GENERAL
The above clause, which sanctioned the importation of slaves
by the States for twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution,
when considered with the section requiring escaped slaves to
be returned to their masters, Art. IV, § 1, cl. 3, was held by Chief
Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 1770 to show conclusively that
such persons and their descendants were not embraced within the
term ‘‘citizen’’ as used in the Constitution. Today this ruling is interesting
only as an historical curiosity.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/011.pdf From: Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution
Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
Senate Document No. 108-17
2002 Edition: Cases Decided to June 28, 2002

 

[paperview]

Well technically an indentured servant is a slave. So what's the argument? How exactly did Beck lie?

Yes, they are and so were the imported people from Africa. It covers them all.

I don't even know what the argument is. You asked where it addressed slavery. I showed you.

Then you would agree that, that portion of the constitution doesn't specify or differentiate bewtween an african slave or an indentured servant.

That part of the constitution was directly addressing slavery importation.
Manual of the Constitution of the ... - Google Books

By the time of the Constitution, the indentured servitude was no where near the scale of black slave labor. (while, yes, some did exist)
However, full-fledged black slavery largely replaced indentured servitude as the need for the agricultural help in the Southern Tobacco & cotton fields grew.

Any reading of the history of the Constitution makes it clear it was addressing the slave trade, by and large.

 

[paperview]

Meh.

I see Liability already covered it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well technically an indentured servant is a slave. So what's the argument? How exactly did Beck lie?

Yes, they are and so were the imported people from Africa. It covers them all.

I don't even know what the argument is. You asked where it addressed slavery. I showed you.

Then you would agree that, that portion of the constitution doesn't specify or differentiate bewtween an african slave or an indentured servant.

You really are an idiot ain't ya Drugstore Cowboy?

Dim Bulb/No Logic, I see that you are as stupid as Blech. You're probably a racist as well.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes, they are and so were the imported people from Africa. It covers them all.

I don't even know what the argument is. You asked where it addressed slavery. I showed you.

Then you would agree that, that portion of the constitution doesn't specify or differentiate bewtween an african slave or an indentured servant.

You really are an idiot ain't ya Drugstore Cowboy?

Dim Bulb/No Logic, I see that you are as stupid as Blech. You're probably a racist as well.

The gaybiker speaks. What's wrong you need your ass kicked again? You can call me an idiot, but this idiot has already kicked your teeth in and I can do it again.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Beck was certainly wrong about that "importation" at $10.00 per person provision of the Constitution ["Article I, Section 9, Clause 1"]. Before spouting off about it, yes, he really ought to have taken some efforts to grasp what it was actually addressing. And yes, it was addressing the topic of slavery. And no, Beck didn't seem to know that rather important fact.

So, perhaps it's just as well that I don't watch his show. The one 'episode' I did catch was not half bad, however.

I would not recommend that conservatives accept Beck as a source of news (in the way that so many libs seem to think Jon Liebowitz Stewart and Bill scumbag Maher are sources of news).

That doesn't mean that Beck doesn't have a capacity to be interesting and maybe even a tiny bit informative from time to time.

Tell me where in Article 1 section 9 it addresses slavery.

LII: Constitution

That's what they were addressing in that provision:

SECTION 9. Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such
Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year
one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may
be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for
each Person.
IN GENERAL
The above clause, which sanctioned the importation of slaves
by the States for twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution,
when considered with the section requiring escaped slaves to
be returned to their masters, Art. IV, § 1, cl. 3, was held by Chief
Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 1770 to show conclusively that
such persons and their descendants were not embraced within the
term ‘‘citizen’’ as used in the Constitution. Today this ruling is interesting
only as an historical curiosity.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/011.pdf From: Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution
Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
Senate Document No. 108-17
2002 Edition: Cases Decided to June 28, 2002

Thanks for the clairification. I engaged in more in depth research and found that slavery was indeed addressed. But to be fair Article 1 section 9 wasn't exclusively meant for slaves, but immigrants as well.

 

[paperview]

Thanks for the clairification. I engaged in more in depth research and found that slavery was indeed addressed. But to be fair Article 1 section 9 wasn't exclusively meant for slaves, but immigrants as well.

er, no it wasn't.

Read it again:

"“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”


Who do you think "such persons" refers to?

Want a hint?How about looking at the Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madison.

Here's a snippet:

Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"


Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion


Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National[SIZE=-2]5[/SIZE] character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

[Click the link for an eyeful. Some good reading there.]

​

And did you really think the Constitution was making an allowance for congress to prohibit immigrants after 1808, but not before? Think about that.

Slaves were merchandise, and as such were being taxed as merchandise.

& Something DID happen in 1808. Can you guess what it was?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Thanks for the clairification. I engaged in more in depth research and found that slavery was indeed addressed. But to be fair Article 1 section 9 wasn't exclusively meant for slaves, but immigrants as well.

er, no it wasn't.

Read it again:

"“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”


Who do you think "such persons" refers to?

Want a hint?How about looking at the Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madison.

Here's a snippet:

Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"


Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion


Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National[SIZE=-2]5[/SIZE] character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

[Click the link for an eyeful. Some good reading there.]

​

And did you really think the Constitution was making an allowance for congress to prohibit immigrants after 1808, but not before? Think about that.

Slaves were merchandise, and as such were being taxed as merchandise.

& Something DID happen in 1808. Can you guess what it was?

Upon further research, I believe you all got it wrong. Article 1 establishes the first of the three branches of the government, Section 9 places certain limits on Congress. Certain legal items, such as suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws are prohibited. No law can give preference to one state over another; no money can be taken from the treasury except by duly passed law, and no title of nobility, such as Prince or Marquis, will ever be established by the government.

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." 61


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61 As the preceding sections deals with the affirmative powers of Congress, this section has to do with what has been called its negative powers. It enumerates ten things which Congress may not do.

In Section 9 a legislative body was for the first time restrained. Kings had been curbed by charters, but never a legislature. Parliament was often tyrannical. American statesmen feared the legislature. "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for," wrote Jefferson. Madison argued that "the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions" in self-defense. So the first American invention in government was a curb upon legislative power, as was the second. 97



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. 62
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62 By the ancient writ of habeas corpus (have the body) an English court commanded the jailor or other officer having a prisoner in charge to bring him before the bar for inquiry as to the legality of his restraint from liberty. Men had been cast into prison without formal charge and left there without hearing or trial. In the Petition of Right to which Charles I was obliged to assent (1628) the sovereign was charged with violation of this privilege, which antedated the Magna Charta (1213). It was prayed in the Petition that "freemen be imprisoned or disseized only by the law of the land, or by due process of law, and not by the King's special command without any charge." In the reign of Charles II (1679) the first Habeas Corpus Act was passed to make more definite the rights of Englishmen which had been disregarded on one pretext or another. In the reign of George III the first act, relating to charges of crime, was supplemented by an act dealing with deprivation of liberty for any other reason.

Knowing in how many ways this right of the Englishman and the English colonist in America had been defeated, the framers of our Constitution forbade suspension of the privilege except in two similar contingencies; but even in time of (1) rebellion or (2) invasion the privilege is not to be suspended unless the public safety may require it.

As this clause is in Article I of the Constitution, relating to legislative powers, and as the subject is not mentioned in Article II, dealing with the powers of the Executive (President), it was held by Chief Justice Taney shortly after the outbreak of the Civil War that President Lincoln did not have power to suspend the privilege of the writ, Congress alone possessing that authority. The President had suspended the privilege in several instances where former officers of the army or the government had gone over to the Confederacy and were active in the North against the Union. Such persons were put in prison and held without trial.

To set the matter at rest Congress later authorized President Lincoln to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

In England a habeas corpus Suspension Act often is passed which partially annuls the operation of the celebrated Habeas Corpus Act of Charles II (1679). The Suspension Act makes it hopeless for any person imprisoned under a warrant signed by the Secretary of State on a charge of high treason or on suspicion of treason to insist upon being either discharged or put on trial. The Government of England may defer indefinitely the formal accusation and public trial of persons imprisoned on suspicion of treasonable practices. That cannot be done in the United States.
No bill of Attainder 63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63 The bill of attainder in England was an act of Parliament by which a man was tried, convicted and disposed of without a jury, without a hearing in court, generally without hearing the witnesses against him, and without regard to the rules of evidence. His blood was attainted or corrupted legally so that he could not inherit property from others nor could his children inherit property from him. This deprivation of property was contrary to the charter of Edward III (1327-1377), which said that no one should be "put out of his lands or possessions, . . . or disinherited, . . . without being brought to answer by due process of law." Bills of attainder were first passed by Parliament in 1459 and were often employed during the time of the Tudors (1485-1603). In the reign of Henry VIII (1509-1547) they were much employed to punish those who had incurred the King's displeasure and many fell victims who could not have been charged with any offence under existing law. During the Long Parliament (nearly twenty years) beginning in the reign of Charles I (1625-1649) Parliament itself made effective use of the bill of attainder to dispose of objectionable persons. In the reign of William III and Mary (1690) an act was passed "for the attainder of divers rebels;" and Macaulay says that "it was not even pretended that there had been any inquiry into the guilt of those who were thus proscribed." In 1870 forfeiture was abolished by the English Government except upon outlawry, and it was provided that "no judgment of or for any treason or felony shall cause any corruption of blood or any forfeiture or escheat." For his activities and writings in behalf of colonial rights Jefferson's name was included in a bill of attainder presented in Parliament, but it was not pressed to a vote.

The convenience of the bill of attainder when ruthless power found in its way legal safeguards to the man was well illustrated in the case of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford and chief advisor to Charles I, who was impeached (1640) and tried before the House of Lords on the charge of attempting to subvert the liberties of England. As the evidence seemed insufficient, and as Strafford defended himself with great ability, his prosecutors, foreseeing an acquittal, withdrew the impeachment and subsequently attacked him by a bill of attainder which passed both Houses and received, under the pressure of public opinion, the unwilling signature of the King, Strafford was beheaded.

Bills of attainder were known in America in colonial times. In 1777 Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill of attainder for an outlaw in Virginia. This method of punishment was often used during the Revolution. In Lecky's "England in the Eighteenth Century" it is mentioned that in the State of New York and act confiscated all the goods of fifty-nine royalists, including three women, and in a footnote the author makes reference to "a long list of these acts of attainder."

Having beheld the injustice of such punishment, the framers of our Constitution put in the instrument two prohibitions of bills of attainder, this one to curb the National Government, and one in the section following 71 preventing such legislation by the government of a State.c12, c13



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or ex post facto Law shall be passed. 64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64 An act is ex post facto (after the deed or fact) when it (1) makes a criminal offence of what was innocent when done, or when it (2)aggravates a crime, making it greater that it was when committed, or when it (3) inflicts a greater punishment than was prescribed at the time the crime was perpetrated, or when it (4) alters the rules of evidence in order to secure a conviction, or when it in effective not in purpose (5) deprives the accused of some protection to which he had become entitled. Thus a law changing the number in a jury from twelve to eight after a crime had been committed was held ex post facto as to the accused, who could not be deprived of his liberty unless by a jury of twelve of his peers. And an act passed after a man had been convicted and sentenced to death, requiring that persons under such sentence be kept in solitary confinement, was held ex post facto as to him because imposing additional punishment. But acts changing punishment from hanging to electrocution have been held by several courts not to be ex post facto, for, as one of the courts said, the act, so far as it could tell, might have mitigated rather than increased the punishment. c92, c101

Nor was the law of the State ex post facto which gave the State an appeal in criminal cases which did not exist at the time the crime was committed, the appeal of the State resulting in a conviction of the defendant, the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the legislation of the State did not make criminal what was innocent, or aggravate and offence, or alter the rules of evidence, or otherwise deprive the accused of a substantial right. c44

Near the close of the Civil War an act was passed by Congress that no attorney should be permitted to practice in the Supreme court of the United States or any other Federal Court, or be heard by virtue of any previous admission, until he had first taken an oath the he had not voluntarily given aid, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States and that he had not sought or accepted office in hostility to the National Government. A man who had served in both the House and the Senate of the Confederate States of America received a pardon from the President in 1865. He applied for readmission to practice in the Supreme Court without being required to take the oath mentioned, which of course he could not take. He contended that the act was unconstitutional because ex post facto, and he also claimed the right under his pardon. The Supreme court held that as the oath could not be taken, the act operated "as a legislative decree of perpetual exclusion," a method of punishment which did not exist at the time the acts of the applicant were done.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. 65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65 A capitation (caput, meaning head) or poll (head) tax is one levied upon the individual without regard to his possession in lands or personal property. The poll or capitation tax was common in early New England. While condemning the capitation tax in "The Federalist", and expressing the belief that taxes should be raised indirectly, Hamilton was nevertheless in favor of head taxes in case of emergency; for he mentioned that the sources of revenue then were few. This clause forbids Congress to lay a tax upon individuals except uniformly, and in proportion to the census provided for 10 in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, where this subject is first mentioned.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. 66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

66 This is the only prohibition in the Constitution upon the taxing power of Congress. A like prohibition as to taxing either imports or exports is declared 73 against the State legislature in Section 10, Clause 2, below.

This provision was demanded by the Carolinas and Georgia. They waived their objections to taxes on imports in consideration of this clause. Some of the agricultural States were in fear of the taxing power.

A tax of one cent a pound on all filled cheese manufactured was held by the Supreme court not violative of this clause as to the owners of cheese which was exported, for the tax cast no more burden on exported articles than was borne by those not exported. So during the Civil War a tax was imposed on all cotton and tobacco. It was contended by men producing and owning that as the larger part of those products was exported the tax was unconstitutional; but of course the tax was not laid because of the exportation -- the commodities were called upon to pay the tax regardless of their entering foreign commerce. However, and act of Congress (1898) to meet the expenditures of the War with Spain was held (1901) unconstitutional under this clause as to a stamp tax imposed on a bill of lading covering shipments of grain for export, that being a tax imposed on the exporter only and for the reason that he exported, a tax plainly prohibited by this clause. c20, c43



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. 67
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67 This proposal was placed before the Constitutional Convention by the delegates from Maryland, their fear being that congressional legislation might prefer Chesapeake Bay ports of Virginia to those of their State. Under the Articles of confederation, as has been seen, each State was free to impose duties and make regulations to the disadvantage of others, and it was desired that equality in commerce be maintained in the future.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. 68
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68 In this clause is repeated the lesson of English history that it should not be in the power of the Executive alone or of the legislature alone to raise or spend the money at will. In Section 7 preceding 37 is the requirement that all bills for raising money must originate in the House of Representatives; but they must then pass the Senate and be signed by the President. In 1842 Congress began to make appropriations by joint resolution; but as that also must be signed by the President, 39 there is no real difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 whatsoever from any King, Prince, or foreign State. 69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

69 "A wise jealousy of foreign influences in the affairs of government," says a writer on our Constitution, "will amply justify this provision."

A provision in almost the same words was in the first section of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. It permitted persons holding office under a State to accept, with the assent of Congress, the objectionable gifts or distinctions; but the constitutions of at least two of the States at that time forbade them altogether. Of course, a republic born of the misrule of a monarchy should not grant titles of nobility. The institution called nobility had possessed itself of most of the posts of trust and honor to the hopeless exclusion of the rest of the people, and by prestige and by the favoritism of the government of which it was so large a part it had gained the greater share of the lands and other wealth of England and of the continental countries.

A gift from the King of France to our ambassador during the Revolution is said to have suggested this provision. "Any present . . . of any kind whatever" was said by the Attorney General's office in 1902 to prevent the acceptance of photographs from Prince Henry of Prussia, brother of the emperor of Germany, by civil and military officers of the United States. But while Jefferson was President he accepted (1806) from Alexander I of Russia a bust of that Emperor, which he said would be "one of the most valued ornaments of the retreat I am preparing for myself at my native home." He said that he had laid it down as a law of his official conduct not to accept anything but books, pamphlets, or other things of minor value; but his "particular esteem" for the Emperor "places his image in my mind above the scope of the law."

This prohibition of the granting of titles of nobility by the Nation is repeated 72 as to the States in the first clause of the next section.

By the charter issued to Lord Baltimore in 1632 he was authorized to grant titles of nobility in Maryland. A claim to like authority was made under one or two other colonial charters.

In 1810 Congress proposed an amendment, the original Thirteenth amendment, to add a heavy penalty to this clause by this wording,

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, 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 office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

It was thought, at least in the 20th century, that the proposed amendment lacked the necessary ratifying votes. Subsequent research of recent date (1984 continuing to now, 2009) show that the proposed amendment was indeed properly ratified, the State Department WAS notified and was on the books and records of the various States until at least 1876. From 1810 to 1812, twelve states ratified this amendment. The War of 1812 destroyed the library of Congress and these documents were thought destroyed, but in 1994 it was discovered they still exist. After receipt of an inquiry from President James Monroe and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in 1818, Virginia confirmed the ratification March 12, 1819 with the act authorizing the publishing of the VA Revised Code in 1819. The Revised Code contained the Constitution -- including the original Thirteenth Amendment as proposed to the states for ratification in 1810, which the Virginia House and Senate quite propery had done May 1, 1810

The Virginia legislature subsequently authorized the distribution of the Revised Code of 1819 -- with ten copies designated for the executive branch of Virginia, five copies for the Clerk of the general assembly, and four copies for the Secretary of State of the United States, received not later than 29 August 1821; one copy each for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and President James Monroe; one copy each for the federal Senate, House, and Library of Congress, and one copy for every judge in the courts of the United States in Virginia. Thus was the Federal government notified of the ratification by Virginia. By February of 1820, sufficient copies of the Revised Code had been printed to make it available for public sale, and it was advertised as such in a Richmond newspaper. Research conducted on this subject indicates that at least six or seven other Virginia newspapers also carried advertisements for the new Code.

Article V of the Constitution does not stipulate that the States, having ratified or rejected a constitutional amendment, be required to report their actions in any one particular way. Therefore, under the Tenth Amendment, each State is left free to publish the actions of its legislative bodies in any manner whatsoever. Federal law as of 1818, and as amended in 1820, requires that the Secretary of State give public notice of such ratifications as may be reported by the States. That law cannot and does not impair the rights of the States to issue their notices in any manner that their lawfully elected representatives deem proper. Indeed, the Revised Code of 1819 was, and is, the fulfillment of a contract made between those in government and those who have given their consent to be governed, in this case the free men of Virginia.

Evidence has been found that only 10 States may have been required to ratify in 1812, not 13, as two of the States, Connecticut and Rhode Island, did not become full States until 1818 and 1842 respectively, as they were still operating under their original charters and had not instituted a proper State constitution as required by the Constitution until these dates. However, the proposed Thirteenth Amendment was properly ratified with the publishing of the Virginia statutes in 1819. Research has proven that this amendment was unlawfully deleted from the Constitution of the United States of America in random years until 1876 without legislation from any state, or congressional action on the national level.

Avenues are being sought to reinstate this original and lawful Thirteenth Amendment as it was never repealed, but only deleted by outright fraud. Because of this fraud and others, the members of the judiciary and law professions now control all three branches of government. Jefferson warned of this. It is thought that one effect of this original Thirteenth Amendment would have precluded any member of the Bar Associations from citizenship and the ability of holding any office under the Constitution of the United States. If the original Thirteenth Amendment were reinstated, as members of the Bar Associations retain a title of honor, i.e. "Esquire", setting them apart from the common man, or as possessed of special privileges or immunities before the courts and in government not available to the common man, they would therefore be excluded from citizenship and eligibility to office in government. There is some doubt in this, however.

The main effect that restoration and implementation of the original Thirteenth Amendment would have in these times in the 21st Century would be the heavy penalty to the members of the judiciary, politicians, and the political "war chests" which are on the "take" of emoluments from the lobbyists of the foreign nations, foreign special interest groups, and foreign/multinational corporations.

"They saw all the consequences in the principle and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." -- James Madison

The Constitution For The United States, Its Sources and Its Applications - Article I

 

[paperview]

Thanks for the clairification. I engaged in more in depth research and found that slavery was indeed addressed. But to be fair Article 1 section 9 wasn't exclusively meant for slaves, but immigrants as well.

er, no it wasn't.

Read it again:

"“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”


Who do you think "such persons" refers to?

Want a hint?How about looking at the Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madison.

Here's a snippet:

Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"


Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion


Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National[SIZE=-2]5[/SIZE] character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

[Click the link for an eyeful. Some good reading there.]

​

And did you really think the Constitution was making an allowance for congress to prohibit immigrants after 1808, but not before? Think about that.

Slaves were merchandise, and as such were being taxed as merchandise.

& Something DID happen in 1808. Can you guess what it was?

Upon further research, I believe you all got it wrong. Article 1 establishes the first of the three branches of the government, Section 9 places certain limits on Congress. Certain legal items, such as suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws are prohibited....

Well, what a humongous waste of cut & paste that was.

How about you address my post, and explain, in your own words, what you think is wrong.

 

[paperview]

Your own stupidly long cut & paste (which apparently you didn't read - I guess you thought best to muddy the debate by throwing in all that extraneous junk), from "Barefoot's World" contradicts you.

"The slave States, for receiving a disproportionate representation in the House of Representatives on account of their slave population, gave their support in the Convention to the Constitution; and when the abolition of the slave trade was postponed by one clause for twenty years [61]

Note that footnote number [61]?

See that?

Click on that link.

What Article does that refer to?

lol.


Good Lord.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

er, no it wasn't.

Read it again:

"“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”


Who do you think "such persons" refers to?

Want a hint?How about looking at the Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madison.

Here's a snippet:

Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"


Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion


Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National[SIZE=-2]5[/SIZE] character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

[Click the link for an eyeful. Some good reading there.]

​

And did you really think the Constitution was making an allowance for congress to prohibit immigrants after 1808, but not before? Think about that.

Slaves were merchandise, and as such were being taxed as merchandise.

& Something DID happen in 1808. Can you guess what it was?

Upon further research, I believe you all got it wrong. Article 1 establishes the first of the three branches of the government, Section 9 places certain limits on Congress. Certain legal items, such as suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws are prohibited....

Well, what a humongous waste of cut & paste that was.

How about you address my post, and explain, in your own words, what you think is wrong.

Everything was wrong. Nowhere in those notes did it mention section 9 article 1 as a matter of fact what was being considered was the 1st. clause of 1 Sect. of art: VII.

Mr. SHERMAN thought it necessary to connect with the clause for laying taxes duties &c an express provision for the object of the old debts &c-and moved to add to the 1st. clause of 1st. sect. art VII "for the payment of said debts and for the defraying the expences that shall be incurred for the common defence and general welfare."

The proposition, as being unnecessary was disagreed to, Connecticut alone, being in the affirmative.

The Report of the Committee of eleven [see friday the 24th. instant] being taken up,

Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"

Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion

Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National5 character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

On the motion; which passed in the affirmative.

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.6

You conveniently left out what preceded Pinkney' s "moved to strike" comment.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Your own stupidly long cut & paste (which apparently you didn't read - I guess you thought best to muddy the debate by throwing in all that extraneous junk), from "Barefoot's World" contradicts you.

"The slave States, for receiving a disproportionate representation in the House of Representatives on account of their slave population, gave their support in the Convention to the Constitution; and when the abolition of the slave trade was postponed by one clause for twenty years [61]

Note that footnote number [61]?

See that?

Click on that link.

What Article does that refer to?

lol.


Good Lord.

Why do you just clip out a small portion of the text?

11 Referring to slaves. The word slave or slavery does not appear in our Constitution until we reach the Thirteenth Amendment, adopted (1865) after the Civil War. This is the first of the three "compromises of the Constitution" [61] and [121], which have been called the beginning of the Civil War that burst in fury three quarters of a century after. Although slaves were not citizens or voters, the number of them was considered in laying direct taxes and in ascertaining how many members a State should have in the House of Representatives. The fraction "three fifths" had been agreed upon in Congress three years before, when the question was whether, in the levy of direct taxes, slave-holding States would be undertaxed (as Northern men contended) by not counting the slaves as population or overtaxed (as the South claimed) by counting them. The compromise then made as to taxation was employed as to representation in the House. While these compromises were under discussion at Philadelphia the last Congress under the Articles of Confederation, sitting in New York, passed the ordinance creating the Northwest Territory (later Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin) and forbidding that slavery ever exist within its limits. Fiske ("Critical Period in American History") says that in 1787 was a cloud no larger than a man's hand. The institution had been dying slowly for fifty years. It had become extinct in Massachusetts and in nearly all other Northern States, and it had just been prohibited in the National domain. In Virginia and Maryland there was a strong party of abolition and the movement had also gained some strength in North Carolina. It was only in the rice swamps of the far South that slave labor was wanted. The slave States, for receiving a disproportionate representation in the House of Representatives on account of their slave population, gave their support in the Convention to the Constitution; and when the abolition of the slave trade was postponed by one clause for twenty years [61] the South agreed in return to the commerce clause [45] providing for absolutely free trade between the States. In the Constitutional Convention George Mason of Virginia and other southern delegates spoke severely against slavery.

 

[paperview]

Upon further research, I believe you all got it wrong. Article 1 establishes the first of the three branches of the government, Section 9 places certain limits on Congress. Certain legal items, such as suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws are prohibited....

Well, what a humongous waste of cut & paste that was.

How about you address my post, and explain, in your own words, what you think is wrong.

Everything was wrong. Nowhere in those notes did it mention section 9 article 1 as a matter of fact what was being considered was the 1st. clause of 1 Sect. of art: VII.

Mr. SHERMAN thought it necessary to connect with the clause for laying taxes duties &c an express provision for the object of the old debts &c-and moved to add to the 1st. clause of 1st. sect. art VII "for the payment of said debts and for the defraying the expences that shall be incurred for the common defence and general welfare."

The proposition, as being unnecessary was disagreed to, Connecticut alone, being in the affirmative.

The Report of the Committee of eleven [see friday the 24th. instant] being taken up,

Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"

Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion

Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National5 character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

On the motion; which passed in the affirmative.

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.6

You conveniently left out what preceded Pinkney' s "moved to strike" comment.

Wow.

Just wow.

 

[paperview]

I'm beginning to think I would have more success in discussing the matter with my 9 year old neighbor.