|
Termyn8or -> RE: If You were President (11/4/2008 11:53:26 AM)
|
Two researchers actually found that the original thiteenth amendment was actually ratified. It was called the titles of nobility act and effectively did just that. Although I can't attest to this 100%, this would mean any member of the bar would not be able to hold any public office, because the ABA is actually a branch of the bar association based in England. The wording included "any emolument or title", and that would of course include the title esquire.
That amendment came out around the time of the civil war, and has been discussed to death. It may have been valid, but only as valid as the rest of the Constitution. With what was going on, there were already shit stains on it. The southern states had every right to secede from the union, but they were prevented by force. Some convenient fires and a few other happenstances got this amendment buried. It was replaced by the current thirteenth after control was established. The titles of nobility act is pretty much forgotten now, and really, if you think about it, you might wonder where our politicians' loyalty really lies. Really, it is unclear how much allegiance the ABA has to the original bar association, since we are talking about different countries with different laws. However, the original thirteenth would have disqualified them all from holding public office of any kind, and I mean even dog catcher.
However there is another question here, Ohio actually voted for ratification of the original thirteenth, but was not yet a state. Ohio became a state in 1953 retroctively to 1803, and that is totally contrary to the Constitution, as it is retroactive. But after looking at the KPMG case, retroactive law is OK now. Not that KPMG was squeaky clean, but they got slammed in ways that the government should not have the power to invoke. What they did was legal when they did it, wrong or right, it was legal. I'll save the rest of that mess for another time.
The thing is that no retroactive law shall be passed, so now we can argue whether voting for statehood is law or not. If we deem it law that means that Ohio is still not a state. If we deem it something other than law then Ohio was a state and the original thirteenth should be the law of the land. A sticky wicket to say the least.
The proponents of the original thirteenth amendment no doubt knew what lawyers could do. They could write a five thousand page law making it illegal to park on a sidestreet overnight, which many communities have. They sook to avoid this bullshit and have law that is clear and concise, that did not take a week to read.
Many congressmen and senators complained that they had no time to read the patriot act before having to vote on it, and were threatened that if they didn't vote for it they would be responsible for the next terrorist act perpetrated on our soil. Ron Paul introduced a bill that would require a certain amount of time between a bill's introduction to the house and the ultimate vote. Need cites for that or does your memory work ? I don't know if Paul's bill passed, and it really doesn't matter, the people who write the bills could just make them longer. IIRC Paul's bill called for ten days between, and that it be available in electronic form as well as on paper. I'd bet it didn't pass.
I am starting to wonder who writes these bills. I have my doubts even that the entire body of the patriot act could have been written between 9/11 and the introduction of the bill. How many pages was it ? It's like they want to write a Bible every few days.
In my view, something that is to become the law of the land should not be overcomplicated. I would favor a word limit on any bill, perhaps a hundred words. This is kind of important maybe because the court holds that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Of course in a fair trail that is defensible because there is a lack of intent, but most courts routinely dismiss such a defense out of hand. Any defense on Constitutional grounds is either disallowed or dismissed, they want convictions.
If income tax were the law of the land, which it is not BTW, that would mean any tax breaks to companies that want to create jobs here would be unlawful. Oh what a tangled web they have woven for us.
We are teetering on the brink of true socialism, and when things get to this point it might be the only solution. People's greed makes it necessary.
Any other ideas are welcome.
T
|
|
|
|
