Original 13th Amendment Removed Unlawfully From U.S. Constitution?

I recall hearing something about this years ago, but I just thought it was a hoax. However, after looking at the photographs found in the text HERE, I’m more than a little shocked that this possible abuse of power was permitted by, who else, but Abraham Lincoln—the same guy that Obama wants to emulate…

But, it must be noted that there is a lot of discussion as to if the original 13th Amendment actually had enough states to ratify it.  Some say yes, some say no.   I don’t know.  However, it is odd that numerous states did publish the original 13th Amendment in their official copies of the U.S. Constitution – even states which had not voted for the original 13th Amendment.

Yup, it certainly is interesting…  So, if you ever see Obama sporting a beard and wearing a stove-top hat, duck for cover!!!


The Missing 13th Ammendment
Posted by The Commentator in Wednesday, December 24th 2008


In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library’s oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this “missing” 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.

So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history — the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the “missing” 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.

In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.

Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.

The story of this “missing” Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment’s meaning and consequent current relevance.

MEANING of the 13th Amendment

The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

“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.” [Emphasis added.}

At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the “title of nobility” Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to “nobility”, “honour”, “emperor”, “king”, and “prince” lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

Not so.

Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited “titles of nobility” several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though “titles of nobility” were already prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.


To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th “titles of nobility” Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power.

Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as “Esquires” and received the “honor” of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This twotiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans’ political interests, the nation’s economic welfare, and the Constitution’s egalitarian spirit.

The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system.

Explore posts in the same categories: Abuse of Power, academia, Analysis, cover-up, Education, Family, History, Orwellian, U.S. Constitution

12 Comments on “Original 13th Amendment Removed Unlawfully From U.S. Constitution?”

  1. ciccio Says:

    Forget about the lawyers, this would strip Carter and Clinton of citizenship right off the bat, they have accepted more than enough emoluments from foreign powers.

  2. C. BEY Says:

    If you would look into the 6th Pan-American
    Conference 1928 in Havanna Cuba. We might find out
    where the power is vested.

  3. Jeff Says:

    The 13th amendment was never removed from the constitution. What happened is that in around 1868 the US governmnet formed a corporation in DC, which adopted its own constitution. We have more than one constitution. We have a corporate one (the one we all learn in school) and we have The Constitution of the United States of America. You can read all about it at teamlaw.org

  4. J. D. Wyatt Says:


    I have a new book out that conclusively proves the original 13th amendment was ratified, made law, and was removed due to a quiet conspiratorial campaign of misinformation, and the removal of one piece of evidence.

    In the book I show who did it, how they did it, and why. I personally found 5 new pieces of evidence that pulls it all together.

    I have worked closely with members of the TONA committee as well in developing this book. If you would like to make 20% commission on the sales of this publication, we have a great affiliate program, and signup is easy!


    J. D. Wyatt


  5. Mama Maria Says:

    Only one problem with this logic. Our lawyers are what the English refer to as barristers. They are not the same thing when considered as a vocation. Lawyers are more of a nobility title in Britain, to my understanding and, therefore, not the same as our lawyers. If the Framers meant our modern day lawyers, they would have said barrister.

  6. Duane Bass Says:

    Something to think about, that is for sure. . .

  7. Christiana Says:

    The American bar association is neither emperor, king, prince, nor foreign power.

    The language “or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever” clearly states that *with the consent of Congress, the language that follows is not applicable or relevant.

    All this amendment means is that since Rudolph Giuliani was knighted by the British without the consent of Congress, he is no longer a citizen.

    • Neither would Bill Gates nor Alan Greenspan be considered citizens under this lost Amendment. Of course, the language of the Amendment allows for the recipient of a title of nobility to refuse the title, thereby retaining his/her U.S. citizenship.

      It would be a great Amendment in that it would have separated the wheat from the chaff.


  8. Just uploaded this to Facebook |Top rate article plus one to the author for sharing. I put it on Facebook.

  9. Irma Benzie Says:

    Right away I am ready to do my breakfast, once having my breakfast coming again to read additional news.|

  10. Karena Uthe Says:

    Good day I am so excited I found your site, I really found you by accident, while I was searching on Yahoo for something else, Anyhow I am here now and would just like to say thank you for a remarkable post and a all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the moment but I have bookmarked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the fantastic job.|

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: