Not long ago I could not find much in search, the sovereign law groups have
been referring to it, and the debunkers may be coming out to obfuscate it.
http://www.thirdamen...om/missing.html
And there is a lot more to the development of this story through the 14th British coup as necessary to read the
Bork book, the 14th was voted by a small group in the house at 1 AM and never ratified by the states, is formally
when the United States ceased to exist, setup by the depopulation strategy ( war between the states ).
The missing 13th :
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.(1)
It was published in the US Statutes and copies of the constitutions but appeared to later be obfuscated by saying that it was not fully ratified,
and removed from publications.
This is how the let in the BAR (british accredidation registry) esquire titles of nobility, into government, now you got CFR and bilderbergs groups of foreign
entities owning government, etc etc.
>>>>
But the amendment continued to appear as part of the Constitution in official and unofficial publications well into the second half of the nineteenth century.(67) Although its appearance in the Bioren edition has been described as already an anachronism,(68) a new edition of Statutes at Large was not authorized until 1845.(69) TONA could be--and was--easily transcribed into other publications, thus perpetuating the erroneous belief that the amendment had become part of the Constitution. The most prolific of those publications--both in terms of impact and distribution--is said to have been textbooks,(70) but many official state and territorial publications, as well as the press, also legitimated TONA.(71)
Only one court ever has examined the substance of TONA,(72) and even then only tangentially. In Afroyim v. Rusk,(73) the Supreme Court briefly examined the circumstances surrounding the proposal of TONA in order to determine if they provided any guidance as to whether Congress could enact a law stripping an American of his citizenship without a voluntarily renunciation.(74) The Court held contemporary judgments about TONA to be inconclusive, but noted that the 14th Amendment since had settled the issue.(75) In dissent, Justices Harlan, Clark, Stewart, and White examined TONA in slightly greater detail, but also concluded that the "obscure enterprise" of 1810 did not "offer any significant guidance for solution of the important issues now before us."(76)
<<<<
Edited by AChartist, 10 November 2013 - 10:53 PM.
