The American Bar Association - Illegal

[Freedomless]

Here are some links that support the title.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/13/page_a.html


http://www.civil-liberties.com/13/page_h.html

http://www.civil-liberties.com/13/page_i.html

And the WHAT IF!

http://www.civil-liberties.com/13/page_j.html

The states that ratified.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/13/page_k.html

http://www.civil-liberties.com/13/page_n.html

[Admin]

Cool links, there is also a thread discussing this here.

[mrg]

Constitution Article I Section 6 Paragraph 2: "...; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

I have heard, that lawyers and attorneys, who "practice" law in the courts of the United States, (as well as in the courts of the states) are Officers of the Court, and must swear and file an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution in the capacity as an Officer of the Court.

If this is true, then might it not follow that:

an Officer of the Court of the United States would be "a Person holding Office under the United States" (under the "The judicial Power of the United States," Constitution Article III), and thus, apparently, according to the Constitution, shall not "be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office?"

[Freedomless]

We supposedly have 3 branches of government. When the majority of our Congressmen are attorneys, the judges are attorneys and those who are suppose to represent us in court are attorneys, do we really have three branches of government?

Here is another link to the real 13th Amendment.

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Lorane%20Stanley/My%20Documents/EFTrans/13thamendment.htm

[masterduke]

Paraphrasing the late Richard Pryor in skit invoving the IRS and he; IRS Court judge,"were gonna show you some justice, N..... ! Richard, "They showed me some justice alright, JUST US is what they showed me!"
Its all just a Cruel Joke.

[Freedomless]

With the real 13th Amendment in effect, does the following hold true for the illegal 13th and 14th Amendment?



"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
-Abraham Lincoln

[weishaupt1776]

The Informer has some cool stuff on The American BAR

[mrg]

[quote=Freedomless]We supposedly have 3 branches of government. When the majority of our Congressmen are attorneys, the judges are attorneys and those who are suppose to represent us in court are attorneys, do we really have three branches of government?

I just re-read the Constitution a few times, and studied on it a bit.

I find no mention of "branches."

I do find:

Article I, "legislative Powers," (plural);
Article II, "executive Power," (singular);
Article III, "judicial Power," (singular).

No "branches."

There is no "separation of powers" either: the executive is in the legislative, and the judiciary, for instance, and very greatly so.

"Checks and balances," arguably, perhaps.

The terms used in the Constitution can fairly easily be discussed using only the terms included within it. There is no need to "define" or "interpret" what is there by substituting a stated term with something else.

A Power is a Power, not a "branch."

(Government is a process not a physical object or edifice.)

The words of the document are simple, straightforward and easy to comprehend in and of themselves.

Anything latter to Amendment X is repugnant to it and the former.

(A whole lot of what comes before Amendment XI is regularly ignored by those who are generally but presumed to have sworn an Oath to uphold it.)

The preamble is by far the most salient, most powerful, most significant, and most important statement in the entire document, and lawfully is that which empowers the whole.

(The preamble to the first ten Amendments is regularly and routinely omitted from transcriptions.)

When one examines the original handwritten parchment manuscript, the position of Title to the document is quite clearly held by "We The People."

By the ordaining and establishing of "this Constitution for the United States," "the Constitution of the United States" is so referenced in Article II Section 1 paragraph eight. (Note: "the" and "the;" where there is no capitalized article, there is no Title.)

Neither "Constitution for the United States of America," nor "Constitution of the United States" holds any place of Title to the document.

Examination of the original handwritten manuscript shows that the position and style of Title, according to any accepted Manual of Style from that time period to the present, is clearly held by "We The People."

http://archives.gov/national-archive...on_zoom_1.html

The established and ordained document is clearly notTitled as The Constitution for the United States of America, or The Constitution of the United States.

In fact, it is notable that an amount of care was taken to not give Title in the handwritten manuscript other than to We the People, and therein, quite clearly.

The term "Constitution" is capitalized as a proper noun throughout the document, and the prepositional phrase "of the United States," is generic, and is applied throughout the document.

Regardless of the motives of the assemblers of the document, it outlines a decent process, if put into honest practice.

I do not think it has been yet.

[summergarden]

The Constitution (U.S) also says that no one with a title of nobility shall hold any public office.

WHAT IS AN ESQUIRE?

Regards,
Summergarden

[Shoonra]

Esquire is not a title of nobility. It is, if anything, a title of commonality, below knight. See, e.g., Blackstone's Commentaries and Coke's Institutes. It is not inherited, and in English law at the time of the Founders and since, hasn't been "bestowed" by the monarch on anybody. British courts have held that "esquire" has no official significance, is unregulated, and anyone can simply use it without getting any sort of permission.

By English practice, dating IIRC to the 16th century, barristers were all called esquires to maintain a sort of equal footing in court - rather than calling attention to any class distinctions between opposing lawyers. In the US it appears that this custom - as a custom - was continued, at least partly because American lawyers, before World War One, very often trained for the profession by apprenticeship and not by formal education, and therefore they had no academic degrees to put after their names. They never got the "esquire" from any govt, foreign or domestic, they simply attached it to their names as a matter of tradition (and nowadays a great many US lawyers use their legal degrees after their name instead of "esq.").

Oddly enough, judging from letters surviving from the Federalist era, the Founders didn't seem to have any problem about attaching "esq." to their own or other men's names.