Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium® CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

 

here are two amendments which appear in the US Constitution that were fraudulently declared ratified by then Secretary of State Philander P. Knox and US Solicitor General Joshua Reuben Clark. They are the 16th and 17th Amendments to the US Constitution. The JP Morgan-Rockefeller-Rothschild international banking cartel (which actually encompasses about 100 of the wealthiest families in the world) swapped New Jersey Gov. Thomas Woodrow Wilson the White House for their own private central bank. In doing so, they perpetuated the fraud on the people of the United States. To make a central bank viable, the bankers needed to be able to levy the incomes of the people of the United States. To do that, they needed Congress to enact a federal income tax. There was only one problem with that. Assessing an unapportioned tax (that unfairly and punitively targets one citizen over another) was specifically prohibited by the Constitution. The bankers needed a constitutional amendment to correct Article 1 § 8. The bankers had one other problem with this plan. Every attempt to create a permanent central bank or, for that matter, a new temporary one, met fierce resistance from the States and from State banks. To get a constitutional resolution through Congress, it would first be necessary to remove the States from the equation of governance at the federal level. The 17th Amendment did that.

Now before we go any farther, stop for a minute and ask yourself a question. But first, let's set the scene so when we frame the question, you have a true understanding of how our government was originally set up, and why it worked so well until 1913. The year is 1907. It had been 120 years since a confederation of sovereign States formed a nation. The States designated, through a Constitution, that a Chief Executive would be elected every four years who would represent them—the States—and their interests before the nations of the world. (Keep in mind, many times the interests of the States differ from those of the people who, separately, would be represented by the House of Representatives). The States, the People and the Executive would be co-equal and, jointly, those three bodies would rule the nation. That's what made the United States of America a Republic. Representing the interests of each State were two Senators, giving each State—regardless of its size—equal stature in the Senate chamber. Between the two bodies, the Senate is more powerful since Senators serve terms three times as long as the Representatives. Add this final picture to your thought processes. You are a governor, a State Senator or a State representative or assemblyman. You—not the people—have been electing your US Senators for 120 years. They work you, not the people. You elect the President of the United States, since he works for you. Not the people. Okay. You now have the picture.

The US Congress submits a constitutional resolution to strip you of your power. You will no longer elect the Senators. You will no longer control them. Nor will you control the President of the United States since you will no longer have any power in Washington, DC. Our power, as citizens of the United States extends no farther than selecting between a slate of candidates handpicked by someone other than ourselves. Prior to the "ratification" of the 17th Amendment, the State legislatures actually picked the candidates—and elected them. If you were a State Senator or representative, would you vote to surrender your power in Washington, DC by surrendering your State's right to control the US Senate? Of course you wouldn't. Yet, according to Knox and Clark, that is precisely what the States did. (Since the purpose of this article is to deal not with the fraud involved in declaring both the 16th and 17th Amendments ratified when they weren't, but with three entirely different 13th Amendments, supposedly with the first one being ratified on April 10, 1810 (although the House Joint Resolution was not enacted by Congress until May 1, 1810). It was actually proposed on April 27, 1810. The second one was submitted on March 2, 1861 by the 36th Congress, and the third one was proposed on Jan. 31, 1865 and ratified on Dec. 6, 1865 by the 38th Congress, we will leave the discussion of the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment for the time being. (If you wish more information on the fraudulent ratification of those amendments, click on "Search", in the left column, and enter the words 16th Amendment and it will bring up every reference to the 16th or 17th Amendments on this website. Or, for even more information, you can purchase a copy of my book, Whatever Happened to America?. Click on the book cover on the left.)

Let's take them in reverse order, since everyone is familiar with the 13th Amendment that was ratified on Dec. 6, 1865. It ended slavery in the United States. History teaches that the 13th Amendment was an extension of the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Abraham Lincoln on Wednesday, Sept., 22, 1862. While several historians wrote that Lincoln delivered the proclamation from the Antietam battlefield, known as the Battle of Sharpsburg by Southern historians (or even as the Battle of the Cornfields) at Sharpsburg, Maryland, Lincoln did not go to Sharpsburg until Oct. 3, 1862—11 days after the proclamation was issued to speak directly with Gen. George McClellan in order to understand his logic for not pursuing Lee when the Confederate army scurried back across the Potomac, crushing Lee and ending the war somewhere in Virginia. The reason was that while history (always written by the victors) credited McClellan with a victory at Sharpsburg, Lee actually won the battle. He wisely decided to retreat back across the Potomac when massive Union reinforcements arrived on Sept. 18. Lincoln fired McClellan on Nov. 5 and replaced him with one of his commanders, Gen. Ambrose Burnside, two days later. The only contribution Burnside made to American history is that sideburns are named after him.

The Dec. 6, 1865 13th Amendment
The Lincoln Administration, which was losing the war with the South, learned in June, 1862 that England was preparing to officially recognize the Confederates States of America as a separate and distinct nation. The president held a cabinet meeting on July 22, 1862. Attending the meeting were Attorney General Edward Bates, Postmaster-General Montgomery Blair, Secretary of States William Henry Seward, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and Treasury Secretary Salmon Portland Chase. Lincoln removed the Proclamation from the center drawer in his desk and read it to his cabinet, adding: "I will not surrender this game leaving any available card unplayed." Seward, who believed the Proclamation would force England to abort is planned diplomacy to the South, also thought that "...it may be viewed as the last measure of an exhausted government, a cry for help. It will be considered our last, last shriek on the retreat." When Seward said that, Lincoln returned the Proclamation to his desk and locked the drawer. Stanton, an antislavery Jacobin, and Bates, wanted "...immediate promulgation for maximum effect." Blair noted that Lincoln gained all of his war support from his pledge to Congress, his generals and the American people, the current "border dispute" with the South was not over slavery. Blair pragmatically noted that if Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation the Republicans would lose the midterm election in November.

Lincoln, Seward and Stanton knew there were two reasons why the Emancipation Proclamation had to be issued. And, neither of them had anything to do with breaking the yoke of slavery. In fact, when the Proclamation was read on Sept. 22, it clearly and very specifically did not free any slaves held in any Northern State, nor in any Southern State bordering a Northern State (except Jefferson County in western Virginia). Since Lincoln had no authority in the South, the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves there, either. The only area where any slaves were actually freed, was in Jefferson County, West Virginia where abolitionist John Brown was tried and hung in Charles Town, WV in 1859—for freeing slaves. (Brown, who raided a federal armory in Harpers Ferry, killing 7 people, was captured by then Col. Robert E. Lee. Brown was tried for treason against the State of Virginia. He was found guilty and hung. [West Virginia seceded from Virginia in 1861 and became a Union State in 1863.])

Seward urged Lincoln not to issue the Emancipation Proclamation until after a major Union victory—which he said needed to come quickly. Friends in England told Seward that England planned to recognize the Confederacy immediately following their next victory. That, by the way, is what brought Gen. Robert E. Lee to Sharpsburg on Sept. 17. Both sides recognized that a major victory was the key to getting, or stopping, England's recognition, and support of, the Confederate States. And second, Stanton and his generals believed that by freeing the slaves in the deep South, they would start a slave revolt that would require Lee to divert needed men and resources from the war in order to protect what was left of the economy of the South.

The third 13th Amendment (the abolition of slavery) was proposed in House Joint Resolution on Jan. 31, 1865 and ratified on Dec. 6, 1865 some eight and one half months after the assassination of Lincoln. The amendment reads: " Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The Mar. 2, 1861 13th Amendment
Fear of federalist abuse of power of the hands of the Jacobin Republicans with the election of Abraham Lincoln as the nation's 16th President caused seven States to secede before the inauguration of Lincoln on Mar. 4, 1861. In an attempt to draw South Carolina (Dec. 6, 1860); Mississippi (Jan. 9, 1861); Florida (Jan. 10, 1861); Alabama (Jan. 11, 1861), Georgia (Jan. 19, 1861), Louisiana (Jan. 26, 1861) and Texas (Feb. 1, 1861) back into the nation before the Union was shattered beyond repair, President James Buchanan asked the 36th Congress to prepare a constitutional amendment guaranteeing States Rights. On March 2, 1861—two days before Lincoln's inauguration—the 36th Congress placed a House Joint Resolution 12 Stat. 251, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, on Buchanan's desk. It read: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Time limits for passage of Constitutional Amendments did not begin until 1933. (The 20th Amendment was the first one to include a time limit for ratification.) Thus, the States may still ratify the Mar. 2, 1861 House Joint Resolution on States Rights and deny the federal government the power to interfere with the States in any way. What that means is that ratifying the Mar. 2, 1861 proposed constitutional amendment would create a 28th Amendment that will abrogate the federal governments claim to superior sovereignty under the "commerce" and "welfare" clauses of the Preamble to the Constitution (which actually do not confer any rights on the federal government, but is simply a explanatory statement. The authority of the Constitution begins with Article I.)

Keep in mind, ratification is always contingent on the number of States in existence at the time of ratification, not at the time of submitting a resolution for ratification. That means, to ratify Buchanan's 13th Amendment, 38 States must ratify it. Since only two States ever ratified Buchanan's States' Right amendment, 36 States are still needed. As you will see later, that was the problem with the May 1, 1810 Nobility 13th Amendment resolution.

It should be noted here that on Sept. 25, 1789, Congress enacted a House Joint Resolution to create an 11th Amendment dealing with congressional salaries. It was finally ratified—on May 2, 1992 as the 27th Amendment. It declares: "No law varying the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." It only took 74,003 days to ratify it. Again, there is no reason that the States cannot ratify the Joint Resolution submitted on Mar. 2, 1861 and get the federal government out of their hair once and for all because it is a certainty that the federal government would not, today, send to the States a constitutional amendment that would limit their power. Not after the fraud and subtrafuge they used in 1913 to get it. Again, to date, only two States have ratified Buchanan's proposed 13th Amendment. (Source for this information, US Congress, House Doc. 102-188, 102nd Congress, 2nd Session, 1992.) Buchanan was the first president to ever sign a constitutional amendment resolution, which he did on Mar. 2, 1861.

Liberal historians still try to paint the Buchanan States' Right amendment as one that would guarantee the "slavery status quo" during the 19th century so they could label as "racist" any State that would try to ratify it. In point of fact, the 11 States which seceded from the United States of America did so not over the issue of slavery, but over the issue of States rights and the sovereignty of the States over the federal government.

It will not bode well for the globalists who, today, appear to be within months of collapsing the United States into a puppet state of a global Union to see the States resurrect this amendment as they did the 27th Amendment. Buchanan's 13th amendment, overnight, would radically alter the status quo. In fact, had Buchanan's 13th Amendment been ratified, the JP Morgan-Rockefeller-Rothschild bankers would not have been able to submit joint resolutions to enact the 16th and 17th Amendments, nor create the Federal Reserve System. And Barack Obama would not have been able to take over the US banking institution or the auto industry. Nor would he have been able to fire the CEO of GM.

The May 1, 1810 13th Amendment
In light of the potential ramifications of the Mar. 2, 1861 constitutional amendment resolution, the May 1, 1810 proposed amendment rightly resembles the attention given to afterbirth in a porcelain pail on the floor in the delivery room as everyone oogles the newborn baby. Particularly since the proposed May 1, 1810 Amendment was already part of Article 1 § 9 of the Constitution (minus the penalty). Article 1 § 9, in part, declares: "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 Congress, accept of any present, emolument, Office or Title of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince or foreign State." The Articles of Confederation contained a similar provision as did Article 1 § 10.

The purpose of the three clauses was to clearly establish that, in the United States, there would be only one class of people: common citizens. The granting of titles of nobility created what can be construed as a European superior class of citizens. The United States was formed, and prospered, on the principles that all men are created equal. Yet some member of the new American society disagreed with that philosophy because their families were already more equal than the working class. They were the wealthy aristocracy whose ancestors came to America not with dreams of breaking the shackles that bound them to the royals of Europe, but with vast land grants bequeathed to them by those same crown heads.

Among them were the ancestors of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and the descendants of George Calvert, William Clairbourne, Robert Livingston, Frederick Philipse, Johannes Schulyer, Stephen Van Cortlandt and the other "lords of the manors" who came to America with vast land grants from the Dutch and English thrones that authorized them to create colonies of tenant farmers. They were the Lords of the Manor.

When they came to the American colonies, the families of the manor born possessed liberal land grants that gave them absolute autonomy to write the laws, create the courts and appoint the judges in the colonies they created and controlled as microcosmic kings. But, unlike the tenets of the "patroons" who fell under Dutch rule, the tenants of the English manor lords were deemed, first and foremost, to be subjects of the King of England. Because of that, the Manor Lords could not enact any law that violated or contradicted British law. Thus the tenants of the Manor Lords were better protected from eviction—or incarceration—than the tenants of the patroons. Under the thumbs of the Manor Lords, tenant farmers or tenant storekeepers lived in virtual miniature cultures—some the size of counties, some the size of States—within the American society.

In order to protect their land grants when the Revolutionary War was fought, the sons of the manor born were made to join both Armies. The eldest son was allowed to choose which Army he would join. The next eldest son joined the other side. That way, regardless who prevailed in the war, the land grants of the manor born would be protected. Most of the American patroons and Lords of the Manor signed the Declaration of Independence. Many of them served at State level as legislators or governors or in the central government as Congressmen or Senators. They were, after all, born to rule.

That's why Alexander Hamilton—who epitomized the aristocracy in America—tried, when the Constitution was penned, to insert a class clause into the document which reserved the vote for the aristocracy by mandating that only land owners could vote in the general elections. Since most of the new citizens of the new nation were tenant farmers who rented the lands upon which they built their homes, planted their crops, and raised their families, most would have been ineligible to vote had that clause been inserted in the Constitution. That clause would have assured that the manor born and not the common wage-earner would control precisely who represented them in the legislature. (Which is what happens today with powerful industrialists, merchant princes, bankers and their special interest groups picking the candidates and funding those candidates with enough money to overwhelm any opposing candidate.) Whether they were called patroons, Lords of the Manor, or simply tycoons, the Manor Born of America enjoyed an elevated status in the communities which they owned. Like the Lords and Earls of Europe, they were the law—and, like America's first families of today—they were above the law.

They used both slaves and indentured bond servants to amass their wealth. They were aristocrats by birth. They were born to privilege and title, and bred to rule. Because it was the form of governance under which they were born, it was natural for the Dutch patroons and the English Lords of the Manor to perpetuate the feudal caste system of Europe in the American colonies in order to perpetuate the beneficial privileges of their aristocracy.

When the Constitution was penned, most of the Founding Fathers intended to create a nation of equals. Aristocrats like Jay and Hamilton opposed the concept. As Jams Madison, Edmund Randolph and Alexander Hamilton met in Annapolis on May 29, 1789 to hammer out the structure of the Constitution, they settled on what was called "the Virginia Plan" to create a national government with three coequal branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The concept was based on John Locke's Treatises of Government. The legislative system, like the British Parliament, would consist of two branches: a House of Representatives (the People's house) and a Senate (representing the aristocracy). Because the upper chamber of the US Congress was considered the American House of Lords in which the Senators would represent the gentry, Thomas Jefferson—after the primary author of the Declaration of Independence was added to the group—felt there was an imperative need to concentrate power in the lower chamber. Constitutionally, all revenue legislation must originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate may propose amendments to the money bills which originate in the House, but the Senate may not originate revenue legislation. To further equalize the Representatives in the lower chamber, the Nobility clause was inserted in Article 1 § 9 and, again, in Article 1 § 10, reiterating "...No State shall...grant any Title of Nobility."

When the American people began to criticize the aristocratic arrogance of President John Adams in 1797, the Federalists in Congress enacted the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 which made it a crime for any citizen to criticize the Chief Executive. Ten US citizens were charged under the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. All were found guilty by the US Supreme Court which tried them (giving them no right to appeal), had their property seized and were each imprisoned for four months.

As the Federalists lost favor with the voters between 1804 and 1810 Congress responded to Adam's 1797 aristocratic arrogance by enacting the 13 Amendment Resolution on May 10, 1810 which attempted to reinforce Article 1 Sections 9 and 10. The original form of the amendment read: "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 or 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."

Those who tout the Nobility version of the 13th Amendment as the one and only legitimate 13th Amendment claim that it was duly and legally ratified and ripped out of the Constitution because it banned lawyers and the descendants of the manor born from serving in Congress. Volumes of Internet articles written the various authors claim their version of the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1812 or, at the latest, in 1819. While there is evidence that there was an attempt to ratify it in 1811, it was not ratified that year. Keep in mind there was no time limit on passage. It could be ratified today if enough States voted to do so. A constitutional amendment on congressional pay was proposed as the 11th Amendment on Sept. 25, 1789. Seventy-four thousand and three days later, on May 2, 1992, the States ratified that resolution as the 27th Amendment.

To be ratified, three-fourths of the States in existence at the time of the ratification need to vote in favor of ratification. Advocates of the legitimacy of the Nobility Title amendment claim it was ratified in 1810. However, in 1810 there were 17 States. Thirteen needed to ratify the proposed amendment. Only 10 had by 1812 when war broke out. In 1812 there were 18 States. Fourteen were needed to ratify the treaty. Only 12 States ratified it.

During the War of 1812, the British army sacked the newly created District of Columbia and burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and the Chief Executive's residence. Advocates of the Nobility Title amendment insist that destroyed in those fires was the ratification certificate of Virginia which would have legally made the Nobility Title resolution the 13th Amendment to the Constitution—if it was received in 1812. It appears that Journals from the State of Virginia indicate that State ratified the Nobility amendment in 1819. At that time, there were 22 States. Seventeen were needed to ratify the Amendment. Only 12 had done. And, although the Nobility advocates insist their amendment had been ratified prior to that date, on Dec. 31, 1817, the House of Representatives asked President James Monroe to report on the status of the amendment.

On Feb. 6, 1818 Monroe instructed Secretary of State John Quincy Adams to write to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and New York and advise them the proposed amendment had been ratified by 12 States and rejected by New York and Rhode Island. Adams was to ask those States for their official position on the Amendment. On Fed. 18, 1818 Adams reported back to Monroe that the amendment had not been officially ratified. On March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act 280, which codified the Nobility amendment in the Virginia Civl Code, effective March 12, 1819. Had Virginia done this in 1811 when 13 States were needed to ratify the amendment, the 13th Amendment would have legally barred lawyers from serving in the United States government. However, in 1819 there were 22 States in the Union. Seventeen were needed to ratify the amendment. Only 13 States ever ratified it. Since there is no time limit on this amendment, the ratification of 25 States are still needed to send every lawyer in America, with amici briefs in hand, to the lawyers in the US Supreme Court who, themselves, would be searching for any loophole to invalidate what would then be the 28th or 29th Amendments since it would end their careers on the high court.

Today, there are 27 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Four of them were fraudulently ratified. We know the 16th and 17th Amendments were wrongly declared ratified. Only those who have studied the fraudulent ratifications of those amendments realize that the 14th and 15th Amendments, which the 11 Confederate States were forced to ratify in order to be readmitted to the Union, were also fraudulently declared ratified. All of the returning States were obligated to ratify the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments as a condition of their reinstatement into the Union. All of them deliiberately altered the wording and punctuation of the amendments they certified as ratified, knowing that under the rule of law, the resolutions they ratified must be exact in word and puncuation to the same resolutions approved by all other States. If not, those 11 States would be ratifying a different amendment, and their ratification certifications would legally have to be rejected as "nay" votes.

William Seward, who remained Andrew Johnson's Secretary of State as Johnson served the balance of Lincoln's second term, chose to ignore the multitiude of errors in the 14th and 15th amendment resolutions. Several of the Confederate States substituted completely different words. One State, certified as ratifying the 15th Amendment, substituted a completely different amendment. Just as Seward casually dismissed the errors the Confederate States made in the 14th and 15th Amendment resolutions, Reuben Clark justified the errors most of the States made in the 16th and 17th Amendments by mitigating them with the errors excused by Seward. Clark said: "It will be observed that there were many substantial errors in wording in the resolutions of the State legislatures upon which the Secretary of State acted in issuing his declaration announcing the adoption and ratification by the States of the 14th Amendment."

The government decided that two wrongs do make a right.

 

Just Say No
Copyright © 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.