Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment/Archive 1

Dead Link
I removed the following dead link in 12/2004, the domain expired. Leaving it here for a few months in case it gets revived.
 * Pro-TONA page, arguing that the TONA would allow judges and other public officials to be sued

Missing information
This article should have a table that lists the date of ratifications of this proposed amendment by various states along with a citation to the seminal reference, such as a legislature's official record. Obviously for the disputed states such as Virginia, the proper footnotes/disclaimers would appear. —optikos 02:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The American Bonapartes
Unless the so called Duchess of Baltimore had renounced her US Citizenship, her son would have been a native born US Citizen by blood regardless of where the birth occurred. The United States does now and always has recognized nativity by blood and/or soil, The line about him requiring naturalization should be removed until such a time as his mother's citizenship can be clarified.
 * Not true. Citizenship by birth has only been a right since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, section I of which reads, in part "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." In fact, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott v. Sandford decision had previously held that citizenship was not automatic by birth.--129.133.126.231 16:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Kinighthoods to US presidents and statesmen
In the case of serving and retired US public officials receiving such honors as knighthoods, these already require congressional approval. As do the reception of foriegn medals (such as the French Legion of Honor) by US soldiers. In the later case Congress has granted blanket approval by passing legislation requiring the armed forces to regulate what soldiers may or may not accept. It would likely be no different if TONA were to be passed.


 * I think you're missing the point that the Congress cannot grant statutory approval of these things in the absence of an amendment empowering them to do so. If you read Article I, nowhere does it say they may do this. Nor would the TONA grant them the power to do so. It is basically not the prerogative of the Congress to allow or refuse the acceptance of such a title for an American citizen, no matter in what capacity they act. Nor can an action of the Congress legally contradict the Constitution, therefore the enactment of the TONA would render such statutory approval obsolete (rather than your implication of vice versa). Knighthoods to US presidents and statesmen would strip them of their citizenship (and thus their eligibility to serve in government), period. The basic premise of the document is that a person holding a foreign title of nobility is necessarily in collusion with a foreign power and cannot possibly be loyal to the interests of the United States, and therefore does not have the right to profit by the fruits of citizenship in the United States. --70.131.120.11 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

These sentences don't make sense
"Some people, however, claim that it was properly ratified, and that it would have an effect. The claimed effects are:" They claim the amendment was ratified? It would "an" effect? I'm not sure what the author intended to say there, so I'm not going to try and fix it, but it certainly seems odd to me. If some people do, in fact, believe it was ratified, shouldn't there be some sort of explanatory text there, instead of just going straight into those two potential benefits of the amendment? Mrzaius 19:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Esquire
As Lord Emsworth has pointed out, Esquire has nothing to do with the peerage or nobility. Thus speculation about it barring lawyers from public office seems totally spurious. Mintguy (T) 18:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It is totally spurious, but there's some people out there that actually believe this stuff. It's sort of like a conspiracy thoery, and Wikipedia documents those, so long as they have a sufficiently larege following. -- Khym Chanur 04:24, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Even if this amendment had been ratified, and even if "esquire" were a "title of nobility", what practical difference would it make? All it would mean is that lawyers would have to drop the title "esquire". - Nik42 02:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if they did stop being citizens, it would still not prevent them from practicing law! What nonsense.


 * There are alot of crazy people in this country that like to find weird loopholes. Personally, I don't see how "esquire" is a British peerage at all. And those modern day Americans who support it reek of xenophobia. Unfortunately, this bill can never die.


 * It's not a bill, it's a constitutional amendment. That's why it "can never die". Fortunately, it can also never live (i.e., be ratified), either. --Xinoph 00:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There are about five things wrong with the whole Esquire/lawyer thing - maybe how the conspiracy theory is inccorect could be added, or arguments for and against? - Matthew238 09:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is really not the venue for why the schizophrenic ramblings of certain tax protesters are factually incorrect, and the whole "esquire" angle really has nothing to do with the proposed amendment, nor represents a significant number of people who consider it a live issue. But I'll also note here and now that Michael Badnarik is/was one of those people, and some of the lectures he did during his presidential campaign explicitly contain the "esquire" (and similarly the "BAR = British Accreditation Registry") argument.--70.131.120.11 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Two sentences
I removed the following text:

Mainstream legal opinion rejects these claims as ludicrous. They are generally peddled by far-right extremist movements.

To me, this comes off as unneutral. It also doesn't really fit into the narrative flow of the article as it stands. If anyone can NPOV it and make it fit, feel free to do so. --Slowking Man 06:11, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * They're perfectly true sentences. They are whacko opinions. Wikipedia shouldn't suggest that whacko minority opinions are commonly accepted. Don't delete information just because you don't like the way it's phrased. - 06:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I've rephrased it. Hope you're both content now. --Townmouse 21:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-

Would not the Nobel Prizes, both the ones given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the one given by Nobel Committee of the Storting of Norway (for Peace), also implicate this amendment if ratified. There is also some talk that it actually did succeed in ratification, but that it was never recognized (or was actively suppressed). The following URL (a reprint of a reputable law review article) has good information on the subject:

http://thirdamendment.com/missing.html

Well, yes, that's a very good reference, but as you've read it, I don't see how you can suggest that the "talk" that suggests it was ratified is something other than "raving". "Although the claim of TONA proponents that the amendment was suppressed by a conspiracy of lawyers, bankers, and foreign interests can be dismissed instantly as frivolous, their claims as to why TONA was ratified deserve some attention, if only to demonstrate why they are meritless. " - Nunh-huh 06:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Foreign honors?
The paragraph
 * Absent Congressional approval, if considered honors, gallantry awards from foreign powers could not be accepted. International medal awards are fairly common. For example, on July 24, 2002, Australian SAS commander in Afghanistan Lieutenant-Colonel Rowan Tink was awarded a U.S. Bronze Star.

doesn't seem to make sense. Surely TONA wouldn't have prevented an Australian from accepting a U.S. honor, but rather the reverse? Someone who knows better should fix this so it's both correct and clear &mdash; it's not so right now. &mdash;ajo 17 Mar 2005


 * I think the point was that it was an example of a nation giving an honor to someone who isn't a citizen. I agree, though, that an example of an American soldier receiving an honor from a foreign nation would be a better example. - Nik42 02:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Also link
See also
 * the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which abolishes slavery (1865)

What does the Thirteenth amendment have to do with this one? - Nik42 02:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The Abolitionist Amendment is the actual 13th. TONA would have been the 13th.

An Insult to visiting Monarchs
It is a lack of respect most monarchs do noble acts Dudtz 7/30/05 3:22 PM EST


 * I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make there. This has nothing to do with foreign citizens - a visiting noble couldn't be arrested simply for using their title of nobility in the U.S., even if TONA were activated! --Xinoph 00:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

UK English spelling
Would the spelling "honour" have been used in constitutional documents in the U.S. at this point in history? ettlz 09:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would to remind you that certain American English words (such as honor) were not popularly standardized at that time. Note that many of the (United Sates) citizens at that time had actually grown up learning English English.--hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  22:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In any event, the word is so spelled whenever the failed amendment is quoted, regardless of source. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobel??
Where did this crazy claim come from: "..citizens could no longer accept the Nobel prize, which is certainly an emolument and arguably an honor, and is presented by a king."?

I can't see how the Nobel prize is 'presented by a king' other than in the most literal sense. If that were the case, the problem could be solved by having someone else hand them the box. The Peace prize isn't presented by a king even in that sense, it's handed over by the chairmain of the Norwegian Nobel committee. The prizes aren't awarded by any king or "foreign power", they're awarded by the Nobel Foundation, a private organization. --BluePlatypus 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. The physics and chemistry prizes at least are determined by the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, not by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.  What the effect of that would be under TONA is anyone's guess.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Each of the crazy claims really should be deleted, unless they can be ascribed to a constitutional scholar. There's nothing so stupid that someone won't claim it, and we aren't in the business of repeating non-notable claims by non-notable people, or of reading tea-leaves or crystal balls. - Nunh-huh 12:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Example

 * Absent Congressional consent, if considered honors, gallantry awards from foreign powers could not be accepted. International medal awards are fairly common. For example, on July 24, 2002, Australian SAS commander in Afghanistan Lieutenant-Colonel Rowan Tink was awarded a U.S. Bronze Star.

Could a better example be found? Using the example of an Australian accepting an American award seems like a bad idea in this instance. It is potentially confusing since this amendment doesn't affect non-US citizens in any way. There have obviously been Americans who have accepted gallantry awards from other countries, using one of them as an example would make more sense Nil Einne 10:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I replaced that example with a list of 11 prominent Americans who won the French Croix de guerre. --Metropolitan90 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Another example issue: I'm not sure that "M.D." is parallel to "Esq." It seems as if the parallel with "M.D." would be "J.D." or "LL.B."--"M.D." denotes an academic degree, not a status (one can earn an M.D. while not qualifying for the practice of medicine), while I take it one cannot non-deceptively employ "Esq." if one is not a licensed legal practitioner 66.215.220.180 (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)garychartier

Those wacky tax protestors
I know tax protestors/patriots/militiamen/all-purpose lunatics have tried to use this amendment to prove that lawyers and judges are not citizens and therefore cannot prosecute them.

Meanwhile, the usual tax-protestor nonsense includes things like, "I don't have to pay taxes because I'm not a US citizen because I'm a citizen of Alabama/a citizen of the USA rather than the US/a sovereign freeman/a natural-born white citizen as opposed to a 14th-Amendment citizen/etc."

But has anyone tried, "I don't have to pay taxes because I'm not a US citizen because I accepted a foreign honour as proscribed under TONA?" --75.36.135.165 14:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the above, accepting a foreign honor would not be necessary - according to the standard TONA argument, getting a law degree and appending 'Esquire' to your name would be enough (but note that non-citizens do pay income tax on income earned in the U.S.). Cheers! bd2412  T 14:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, since all lawyers and "furners" are agents of the Satanic conspiracy, no true Patriotic Sovereign Natural White Citizen would commit such a dastardly act. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Material deleted from article
I have removed the following editorial added by User:71.52.1.123 from the article, as it has no basis in legal reality:
 * Not true. The number of states required to ratify an amendment is determine by the number of states in the union at the time the amendment is sent out for ratification. It does not increase with the addition of new states, otherwise approval for statehood would be held hostage to that state's position on any pending amendment. In 1818 when the President requested the House of Representatives petition the states of Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision on ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment (the only ones who hadn't replied with a ratification or rejection) -- they did not ask for the decisions of the four new states.

If anyone wants to add it back, please find me a reliable (non-whacko) source that says newly admitted states have no voice in approving an amendment. The idea that they can not to avoid political blackmail over their admission is absurd, since admission of a state to the union is inherently a political process, and any senator may use any political basis to vote to admit or not. bd2412 T 06:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Prelates
There is also some belief that this proposed amendment was aimed at Catholic Americans who became bishops and archbishops. The Catholic Church was in the process of establishing the American hierarchy while Catholics were undergoing persecution at the hands of a hostile Protestant majority. The first American bishop, John Carrol of Baltimore, was a target of that persecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.85.41 (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any references to back up this claim? --SMP0328. (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was about to suggest that TONA would strip an American Cardinal (i.e., a “Prince of the Church”) of his citizenship. But is that even correct? Perhaps only since the creation of the Vatican as a sovereign State, with the Pope as its Head of State? How obscure! Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Cardinals certainly weren't the target of the amendment, since it was proposed in 1810, and the first American cardinal wasn't appointed until 25 March 1875. - Nunh-huh 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Status in Constitution
Whenever I have read a copy of the US Constitution, I seem to recall these exact words being present. Were they in the original text, or is this an error in those versions? Rotovia (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Article I, Sections 9 & 10 ban the giving of Titles of Nobility by any State or by the federal government. The proposed amendment would have applied to Titles given by other countries to American citizens. SMP0328. (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did anybody care?
Is there any record of why Congress actually gave a damn whether US citizens received titles of nobility from other nations? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, there was concern that other countries would use titles of nobility to gain influence in the United States. SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Better explanation and citation needed
the first example under theories doesn't make sense it doesn't state his argument or where he came up with it --209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire point of the citation is that the claim was raised in a court of law, and that court dismissed it on the basis that the TONA was never ratified. The reason for which it was brought up was irrelevant (although it was probably something along the lines of the next case). bd2412  T 03:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BD2412 is right. The point of that citation is to show that courts have universally rejected the proposition that the TONA was adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * why is always important --69.146.158.34 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Why" is important about what? Why the plaintiff brought the suit? Or something else? In your first post, whose argument are you asking about (i.e., who is "he")? Please explain your objections more clearly. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 01:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the amendment,had it been passed, was at all related to tax evasion--209.181.16.93 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported/false conclusion in Reaction of States
This section comes to the unsupported conclusion that "26" more states must ratify the Amendment for it to become law. That assumes that it is the number of states at the time of the eventual ratification, not at the time of Congress' approval, which is to be used to calculate the 3/4 of the several states mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. If there is support for the former, as opposed to the latter, it should be cited. Otherwise, this 'conclusion' should be removed. If the former is the truth, only the ratification of a single state would be enough for final ratification. 71.36.121.30 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. That amendment was proposed when there were 11 States, and so only 9 ratifications would have been needed for its adoption, but it wasn't considered to have achieved the ratification of three-fourths of the States until it received 38 ratifications (based on there being 50 States). Basically, a proposed amendment is adopted when at a particular time the number of ratifications it has received equals three-fourths of the total number of States at that time. There has never been a moment of time in which the number of ratifications received by the TONA equaled the number of States in existence at that time. SMP0328. (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that is the contrary assertion. I am well aware of the 27th Amendment. As I recall, the 27th Amendment 'just happened to' receive 'enough' ratifications of the 50 states, without (strangely enough) receiving 9 ratifications from the 11 states that were states at the time that amendment was approved by the Federal Congress! Wouldn't you say that's an interesting coincidence? Almost like the remaining states of those 11 states deliberately avoided ratifying the Amendment, while waiting for the 30+ to (seemingly) do the job. The probability against something like that happening purely by accident is astronomical. (If 9 of those 11 states had ratified the 27th Amendment prior to 3/4s of the 50 states, that would have raised the question of when the 27th Amendment had been ratified. Doesn't it occur to you that these events may have been deliberately manipulated to avoid raising this issue? 71.36.121.245 (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To what "issue" are you referring? What "manipulation" do you believe occurred? SMP0328. (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, there were 11 states in the Union as of the date that the Federal Congress approved the "Bill of Rights", as well as what is now called the 27th Amendment. Nobody doubts that if 9 of those 11 states had ratified the 27th amendment 'immediately', before any more states were added to the Union, that amendment would have been considered immediately adopted.  The question is this:  "Does the intervening inclusion of further states into the Union raise the number of states, 3/4s of whose legislatures must vote to ratify that proposed Amendment?"  I well understand that the 27th amendment adoption appeared to assume that the ratifications of 38 of 50 states were required.  Here is the text of Article V of the US Constitution:
 * “ The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
 * Notice the term, 'of the several States'. Does that mean, of the states at the time of the Congress' initial approval (by 2/3s vote) or at the time the final state (3/4s of the number at the time of the last state's vote) ratifies? Article V does not explicitly distinguish between these alternate possibilities. But there is a principle of construction in law that when a legal document uses a term or phrase repeatedly, the definition of that term or phrase is generally construed to be identical with each use. "of the several states", while undefined, presumably refers to a specific number of states, at the time the amendment was proposed. The Founders were presumably aware of the possibility that new states could be admitted into the union: If they intended that such admissions would 'raise the bar', they would presumably had provided for that in the text of Article V.
 * What 'manipulation' do I speak of? My position is that to adopt the '27th Amendment' would have only required the approvals of 9 of the 11 states which were states at the time of the Congress' approval of its text, and not (say) 38 of 50 state legislatures. As I see it, four states' legislatures (Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia) were both states at the time of the proposal of the text by the Federal Congress, AND had their state's legislatures ratify the text. So, it would only have taken five of the seven remaining states (PA, NJ, GA, CT, MA, NH, NY) to ratify the amendment, even as of 1990. Four of those states (NJ: 1992; GA:1988; CT:1987; NH: 1985) did so. My position is that only a single ratification of the remaining 3 states (PA, NY, MA) would have been necessary. So close! But that third never arrived. Why? Because 30 more states (none of which had been states at the time of the proposal of the 27th Amendment ratified. Remember, the Federal Senators and Representatives of those 30 states never voted in Congress for that Amendment text. (Since those states weren't states at the time of the Amendment proposal, obviously). The probability of 30 'new' states ratifying, while not a single one of those final three 'old' states ratified, appears to me to be strongly manipulated: As if they were trying to 'prove' (manufacture evidence for) the idea that the relevant issue is how many states 'of the several states at the time of the final purported ratification. It would have been far 'easier' for them to get one of those last three states to ratify, but that would have required cognizance of the idea that the issue was 3/4s of the states at the time of the Federal Congress' proposal of the text, and not 3/4s of the states at the time of the final 'ratification'. 97.120.252.56 (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some States can't be treated differently under the Constitution (see equal footing doctrine). So there are no "old" or "new" States under the Constitution, just States. Hence, when a new State enters the Union it is put on an "equal footing" with all other States, including regarding Article V. SMP0328. (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that those newly-admitted states had no representatives present for the Federal Congress' 2/3s approval of the text of a pending-ratification amendment. (Because they weren't states, at that point.) If they were to be put on an 'equal footing' with previously-admitted states, that would seemingly require a re-vote on that 2/3s vote, right? I think that Article V was considered to be a recognized exception to the 'equal footing' clause. 97.120.246.1 (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The Equal Footing Doctrine applies to the entire Constitution. An attempt to make an exception to this rule was proposed and rejected at the Constitutional Convention (Source). This rule does not mean anything which passed must be revoted upon. No more would a proposed amendment need to be revoted upon, than would a bill which pass one or both Houses of the Congress without having become law. SMP0328. (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Equal Footing Doctrine" does not appear to be applied. Look, for example, at the percent of Federal Government ownership of land of eastern states, compared with a state like Nevada. I believe that Nevada's land is 90%+ owned by the Federal Government. It is my understanding that on admission to the Union, all Federally-owned land is supposed to be put in trust, for the benefit of the state itself. That, clearly enough, is not occurring. Similarly, as I understand it, the state Utah was admitted with a condition that it eliminate polygamy. Such a requirement did not apply to the admission of any other state. So, your reliance on the "Equal Footing Doctrine" to support the idea that 'new' states must be allowed to ratify a pre-proposed amendment is a very weak support for the idea.
 * There is another problem with the use of the 27th amendment as a counter-example. Note that Virginia voted for ratification of what became the 27th amendment very early. But the state West Virginia (made up entirely of land from the state of Virginia, apparently in violation of the Constitution) was admitted, and it ratified the amendment...effectively ratified it again, because the state of Virginia had already ratified it for the citizens of Virginia, including the citizens of the area that later became West Virginia. Is a state entirely to ratify an Amendment 'twice' simply by the tactic of splitting itself in two, and voting a second time? Perhaps I have not yet 'proved' that 'new' states shouldn't be allowed to ratify, but you should concede that the matter hasn't been proved in the other direction, either. 97.120.246.1 (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * West Virginia became a separate State during the Civil War and so, based on the Equal Footing Doctrine, has the same right to ratify a proposed amendment as does Virginia. The doctrine does not mean the States must be treated identically by the Congress. The doctrine means the obligations and limitation imposed upon the States by the Constitution applies in the same way in each State. As for Congressional conditions on admission to statehood, such conditions are Unconstitutional (see for example, Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911)). SMP0328. (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Virginia legislative response - inconsistency
The facts given in the Reaction in the state legislatures section and in the Misconceptions section are not consistent with respect to the Virginia Legislative response. Presumptively, the "reaction" section is the more accurate since there appears supporting references, but if so then the "misconceptions" section should be rewritten accordingly. CoyneT talk 00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've corrected the Misconceptions section by removing the following:", though there is no documentation that either chamber of Virginia's legislature ever so much as considered it" Now that section is not claiming there is no documentation regarding Virginia. Thanks for catching the error. SMP0328. (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions section is a major POV problem
Virtually the entire 'MISCONCEPTIONS' section is a POV problem. It concedes that in 1810, "the approval of 13 of them would indeed have been required." But it goes on to assume (with no support whatsoever) that the addition of more states into the Union automatically increased the number of states which had to ratify an amendment, and it does so without any references. "However, with the addition of Louisiana into the Union on April 30, 1812, that threshold increased to 14 state approvals." There is simply no support for this declaration of someone's opinion. The wording of the U.S. Constitution does not specify the proper number to use; it is conceivable that the writers of the Constitution simply didn't consider the issue at all. The ratifications by three states of the Bill of Rights in March/April 1939 is a strong indication that SOMEBODY in 1939 was worried that the BOR hadn't actually been ratified in 1791. Anyone claiming, in 2012, that the number of state legislatures necessary to ratify a Constitutional Amendment is 3/4s of the states at the time of that purported ratification, rather than merely those states which were states at the time of Congress' proposal, should have to explain and demonstrate that this was the actual belief of those in, say, 1939, or even 1795. The recent history of the 27th amendment would appear to be support for this idea, but the alternative interpretation is that only a very few states would have had to ratify it, rather than the flood of ratifications by states which became states after the 27th amendment was proposed. A few years ago, I checked the list of recent ratifiers of the 27th, and as I recall those states which were states at the time of the 27th's proposal WEREN'T part of that flood. This is really suspicious. It is as if somebody (actually, many 'somebodys') knew that just a very few ratifications would have been necessary by those original states, and they were explicitly avoiding getting those states to ratify, to avoid raising the question about which states needed to ratify circa 1990. Instead, they got that flood, obscuring the issue. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no POV problem. You have a fringe theory problem. SMP0328. (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is rude and without merit. (It is also suspiciously brief, as if you're afraid to support your allegations. I found this out quite independently of anybody else's theory): I was, in fact, entirely unaware of any other claim in regards to the 27th amendment. While looking into the history of the Bill of Rights, I first noticed the odd fact of the three 1939 ratifications of the BOR. I was aware from the book, "Federal Civil Code and Rules" of the assertion that the 1939 ratifications were ostensibly unnecessary. But, as I looked into it, I discovered that the three 1939 ratifying states were precisely those states which had been states at the time of the proposal of the BOR, the only states of that group which had not yet ratified the BOR. The fact is, there would be utterly no reason for any state, including those three states, to ratify the BOR in 1939, if ratification truly required 3/4's of those states which were states at the time of the ratification. But, if the rule was otherwise, 3/4's of the states at the time of the amendment's proposal in Federal Congress, there would very much be a reason to get at least one of those three states' ratifications in 1939. (And note that if the rule were the way you apparently believe it is, and the BOR HADN'T been ratified in 1791, getting those three states to ratify in 1939 would have been completely ineffective, since by then a total of 48 states had been admitted to the Union.) Thus, you cannot explain why any state, let alone those three specific states, purported to ratify in 1939. I can do so quite readily. I conclude that they very well knew in 1939 that they had made a big mistake in 1791, and they acted to remedy it in 1939. (which, of course, they were entitled to do, and they didn't need 20+ more states to accomplish this, contrary to that 27th Amendment farce.) So, try again. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have to try anything. You need to provide reliable sources for your theory. So far, everything you're saying is synthesis of published material and that's not permitted. You need to provide reliable sources that make the same theory as you, not merely base your theory on reliable sources. SMP0328. (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Jamesdbell8: You wrote: "I found this out....I first noticed....The fact is....Thus, you cannot explain....I can do so quite readily....I conclude...."


 * Thank you for sharing what you found out, what you noticed, and what you concluded. It is obvious that you have been doing your own original research.


 * The issue under discussion, however, is whether the article, as currently written, is or is not presented with a neutral point of view as that term is used in the Wikipedia guidelines, etc. It appears from your comments that you have done your own original research and that you are trying to make a different point or set of points. The material in the article under discussion is referencing misconceptions about a fringe theory. The comments you posted don't really seem to address or explain what it is in the article that is not presented with a neutral point of view. Just as your own original research would probably not be allowed in the article, that research as you have presented it does not really clearly explain what language in the article is not presented from a neutral point of view.


 * Please be more specific. Famspear (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Simply paying attention to information already posted within WP (and other sources on Internet, and for that matter books) is NOT doing 'original research'. When someone posts something like, 'Oregon ratified the U.S. Constitution in 18XX', that doesn't rise to the level of 'original research'.   It's just citing a claimed fact.   You are simply trying to dismiss an arguable interpretation of existing facts by calling it 'original research'. (Multiple times, in fact!) You're desperate.  What I was referring to about non-NPOV isn't the way the article is, today:  I'm referring to the fact that I am proposing to make edits to include this alternative interpretation of the facts in the article, and it is by now quite obvious that others will oppose such a change!  But, if they try to revert, I am making the case already that to do so would violate NPOV, because I do not propose to assert that the claim I will add is the ONLY possible interpretation, merely that it is an alternative possible interpretation based on easily verifiable facts.  For example, suppose I found an article which expresses precisely what I've been saying:  I don't think there's any dispute that I could cite it, although it's obvious you wouldn't like that!  I could express the claim on an article on a website, and then cite it, etc.  You wouldn't like that either. So, stop trying to call what I am doing 'original research'.  All the facts necessary to support this can be obtained from WP articles already, and certainly from other sources accessible on the WWW.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdbell8 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear James: No, what you are doing is "original reseach" as that term is used in Wikipedia. You are putting item A from source X and item B from source Y together, and you are making conclusion Z. Conclusion Z is not a conclusion made by sources X and Y. Conclusion Z is your conclusion, and that is not allowed. It is precisely this kind of method by you as a Wikipedia editor that the Wikipedia rule against original research is intended to prohibit.

No, I am not "simply trying to dismiss an arguable interpretation of existing facts by calling it 'original research'".

Contrary to what you are saying, an article from a previously published third party source that is considered reliable would be precisely what you should be looking for.

Your job as a Wikipedia editor in this particular context is not to cobble together "an alternative possible interpretation based on easily verifiable facts." Famspear (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your reference to a "previously published third-party source THAT IS CONSIDERED RELIABLE" is laughable and reeks of 'chicken-and-egg': I think by definition, you'd call somebody who supported this position as being "not considered reliable", and anybody who supported the conventional position as being "considered reliable".  I have already cited http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html,   the comments of a person who, though he doesn't agree, at least recognizes that IF ratification should count only those states which were states when the amendment was proposed in Congress, indeed the BOR was only finally ratified in 1939.  Critically, he provides no documentation or citations supporting his contrary position.  I would say that he is a "previously published third party source", and you might even consider him reliable.  The fact that one comment he made didn't agree with me, doesn't change the fact that he, independently from me and about 13 years earlier, himself noticed that IF only original states 'counted', the BOR was not ratified until 1939.   If he had done a better job explaining WHY he took that position, you would be able to use him comment for the contrary argument. Therefore, I feel I should be able to cite his comment as supporting the existence of a dispute.   Jamesdbell8 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear James: No, my reference does not "reek" of "chicken-and-egg." I'm explaining the Wikipedia rules.


 * James, the source you cited might well be considered a reliable, previously published third party source for purposes of Wikipedia. It appears to be an article published by a journal associated with the University of Southern California. Why would you "think by definition" that I would not consider that source to be reliable? Indeed, this is the first time I've noticed you citing this source (I guess I missed it if you had cited it in an earlier post).


 * Let's look at what you wrote:


 * If he had done a better job explaining WHY he took that position, you would be able to use him comment for the contrary argument. Therefore, I feel I should be able to cite his comment as supporting the existence of a dispute.


 * I haven't had a chance to read the article you linked yet. But you need to focus on what HE (the source) said -- not on what you wish he had said.


 * If all you're trying to say is that a "dispute" exists regarding the existence or validity of the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) -- well, we already know that there is such a dispute. That's what the article is about: the dispute.


 * Example: If all scientists in the world say that an atom of hydrogen has one proton in the nucleus, and I contend that the nucleus of that atom has fifty protons, then there is a "dispute" about that. The fact that this dispute exists is not really important for purposes of Wikipedia. Why? Because I am not a scientist, and my views about the nucleus of an atom of hydrogen carry no weight in an encyclopedia article on that subject.


 * If, however, you're trying to say that the argument -- that the TONA was ratified and is really part of the Constitution -- has legal merit, then you need to find a reliable third party source that says that. Is this what you're driving at? If so, you cannot simply take what the author said about something else and add it to your own reasoning about the TONA to "create" a basis for saying that the argument has legal merit. That would be an improper synthesis (improper original research) on your part as a Wikipedia editor. Is this what you're trying to do? Famspear (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * James, I recommend that you read up on the Equal Footing Doctrine. It precludes your theory regarding State ratifications. Any new State enters the Union with the same Constitutional authority as all other States. So a new State has as much authority to ratify a proposed Constitutional amendment as the States that were in the Union at the time the Congress submitted that proposal for ratification. SMP0328. (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already addressed this comment in Talk: United States bill of Rights. The "Equal Footing Doctrine" doesn't mean what you think it means.  That's not surprising:  Look at the wording of the 11th Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, and see how a 1890 Supreme Court decision (Hans v. Louisiana) changed the literal wording of that amendment to an entirely different meaning.  Jamesdbell8 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are conflating interpretation with ratification. The Supreme Court's interpretation in Hans merely sought to explain what Congress intended by the amendment; it interpreted the Constitution, without changing the wording. It may be argued that the interpretation was wrong, and indeed that has been the subject of scholarly debates that we can point to as sources for an article on the subject. An amendment is a proposal to change the actual wording. It is either ratified, at which point it becomes a part of the Constitution for all states thereafter admitted under it, or it remains open, in which case states admitted after its proposition are as free to ratify it as any other state. bd2412  T 23:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you don't address the underlying question: Which states are entitled (and needed) to ratify a proposed (by Congress) constitutional amendment?  Just the states that were states at the time of the proposal, or any state that happens to be admitted later?  You write as if your opinion on this question is a foregone conclusion.  There are other opinions, however.  http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html    I am honest enough to acknowledge that the treatment of the Bill of Rights (up to 1938) made it appear that the latter interpretation was followed, but it may very well be that this was simply an error, and they realized in 1939 they needed to fix that mistake.  They could easily do so, merely by having one of those three states ratify.  (In fact, all three did.)   Jamesdbell8 (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is a case then please show me a document from 1939 where it is stated that those amendments had not been properly ratified to that point, and the reason states were then ratifying those amendments was so that they could become legally effective. Such a source would validate your proposition. bd2412  T 04:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a valid point there! But you don't cognize the fact that if the BOR hadn't been property ratified by the beginning of 1939, that would be an enormously embarrassing mistake to have to admit. Do you really think that anybody wrote a document which explained the real problem? Somebody probably talked to the heads of the legislatures of those three states, saying, 'we have a big problem! The Bill of Rights appears like it hasn't been ratified!' The good news, however, was that they only needed a single ratification (out of three) to make it legal. What would YOU have done under the circumstances? I think 99% of lawyers or heads of legislatures would have said, 'we need to get an additional ratification vote, but without explaining to the public why we need it'. If they had tried harder to cover up what they were doing, they'd have gotten a dozen or more other states to 'ratify' it in a 'celebration' or 'symbolic' move. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This reference makes a very good argument as to why the final three states (from the original 13) made the ratification unanimous. It makes more sense than conspiracy theory. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * James, your conspiracy proposition evinces a complete failure to understand how legislatures work. A legislature isn't like an executive branch where you can just go to the top person and get something done. It is a body of people divided into competitive factions, at least some of which would be wary of anything proposed by a leader from the opposing party or from a different faction, and would investigate it for any possible nefarious motive. You propose that these amendments were not in effect at any point before 1939, and yet not a single one of the millions of people who opposed these amendments, Democrats and Republicans, independents, not a single person from any state proposed as much. Even during the Civil War when half the states broke away and were freely and actively criticizing and seeking to embarrass the Union with every charge at their disposal, not a single person questioned the ratification of any amendment to the Constitution. So it seems that your theory requires a much vaster conspiracy than you originally propose, one involving every American of every political persuasion, even those who actively sought the destruction of the country - lasting up until you figured this out. Furthermore, it requires that all of these factions managed to keep this secret, without bothering to make the easy fix, for over a hundred years. Please present reliable sources indicating the existence of such a conspiracy, and then you'll have something that meets the standards of an encyclopedia. bd2412  T 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this has turned into a discussion of the merit vel non of Jamesdbell8's theories. The discussion illustrates the problem -- and it illustrates part of the reason why Wikipedia has a rule prohibiting this kind of Original Research. Famspear (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Map
I'd like to suggest that a map showing ratifications/partial ratifications/rejections/abstentions be included as it has with the Equal Rights Amendment article. Graham1973 (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What are "partial ratifications"? SMP0328. (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Text
Is the text correct? The last sentence sounds wrong to me "and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them" That "either" doesn't make sense there, I would think it was "any" XinaNicole (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hunh. Apparently it is correct. That is a very strange wording! XinaNicole (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Content of Introduction
A condensing of the Introduction's size has been reverted. I believe the new version of the Introduction is better and should be restored. The other version is too detailed. An Introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article's content. The details are to be left to the body of the article. Hopefully, consensus can be quickly reached. SMP0328. (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with SMP0328., the edit should be restored. The reasons he cited were the reasons behind my edit in the first place. I also removed the acronym "TONA" from the introduction (thanks, BlueMoonlet for noting that I didn't remove it from the body of the article) because "TONA" is (as I discovered after a search) not used anywhere–except for a couple "real 13th amendment" conspiracy websites–as an acronym for the Titles of Nobility Amendment. Drdpw (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The current lead section is small compared to the length of the article and small compared to most other lead sections. I do not understand the complaint that it is "too detailed." In particular, the fact that the article subject fell two states short of ratification is interesting and worthy of inclusion in the lead section for two reasons: for the positive reason that very few amendments came this close to ratification and yet fell short, and for the negative reason that some conspiracy theorists claim that it did not fall short and so contradicting that notion in the lead section is worthwhile.
 * Besides that, the reverted version put several concepts into a single cumbersome sentence, while the restored version relies on sentences that are shorter and clearer.
 * I don't have any attachment to the acronym "TONA," though it seems a useful shorthand to me. If you don't like it, then remove it from the entire article and not just from the Intro, where its meaning is explained. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the introduction the way it is and agree that "TONA" should be removed from the article. Many people only read the intro, the current intro summarizes the article well. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus for removing "TONA" from the entire article? BlueMoonlet and possibly Drdpw are in favor of such removal. I have no objection. Raquel Baranow, what say you? SMP0328. (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe we do RE:TONA acronym, and believe we to on the introduction as well, for I've given it some more thought and have looked at the introductions of other unratified amendment articles. I'll go ahead and tweak the article accordingly. Drdpw (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'm "in favor" of removing the abbreviation "TONA." In fact, I don't see a good reason to do it. But if someone wants to go to the trouble of writing replacement prose (which will, of necessity, be bulkier) everywhere that it occurs, then I don't object.
 * On the other hand, if no one does that soon, I will again revert SMP0328's change that removed the abbreviation only from the Intro, also removing its explanation. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the remaining uses of "TONA" (all of which were in the Misconceptions section}. Now I would like us to return to discussing what should be in the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just posted my tweaks to the article. Drdpw (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mostly fine. I made some minor changes. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ratification Map
I would like to propose that as with the other constitutional articles a Map be created showing who actually ratified the amendment (Even if later revoked.).Graham1973 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So do it. SMP0328. (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Virginia
NOTE : According to VARIOUS sources including http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/735109/posts. (For list of references refer to https://www.google.com/webhp?q=lost+13th+amendment.)
 * Virginia was the final state required to ratify the 13th Amendment and add it to the Constitution. However, conveniently enough, a little thing called the War of 1812 got in the way. It is interesting to note the timing of the War of 1812 coincided with the proposal of the 13th Amendment. Very interesting. Focus on Virginia’s position on the ratification of this amendment waned due to the ensuing war and so, that state’s decision was not made known until 1819.


 * The Virginians, it appears, RATIFIED the 13th Amendment by the method of publication and dissemination, which is allowed by the Constitution. This was perfectly well within their right. The state of Virginia published a special edition of the Constitution in a re-printing of the Virginia Civil Code on March 12, 1819. This special edition contained all Amendments, including the 13th. So, the 13th Amendment has an official date of ratification, as published in the special edition of the Constitution and Virginia Civil Code by the state of Virginia. The date is, as stated, March 12, 1819.SCSBarry (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the Misconceptions section and this source for why this proposed amendment is NOT part of the Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

¶ I am the compiler of the notorious IDIOT LEGAL ARGUMENTS, whose 1995 edition is now posted on the Anti-Defamation League website (I am currently working on a revision which seems to be three times the bulk of the 1995 version). I have added a good deal to this article - and I am very grateful for the help and stylistic improvements of other wikipedians. PUBLICATION of the phantom amendment is NOT an effective substitute for ratification. The ratification of a proposed Constitutional Amendment is a very specific and peculiar procedure (for example, unless regular legislation, it does not involve the Governor's signature nor can the Governor veto it)(this from the Hawke decision). It is long held that printers errors in the printing of the laws are not elevated, by the mere fact of appear in print, to the status of binding law. Moreoever, then and now, various States when including the US Constitution in their compilations of State law, printed the whole of the Constitution - even those amendments which were adopted despite this state's failure or refusal to ratify, and the publication is not counted as a ratification by that state. In this instance, the 19th century compilers of some of the state and territorial compilations simply relied on the nearly ubiquitous Bioren & Duane edition in providing the text of the Constitution (with the Phantom Amendment), since the state archives did not contain the original documents. The Phantom Amendment was NEVER treated as adopted by either Congress (which, had it been adopted, would have passed laws as to the procedures, evidence, etc., to make the amendment work) or a court. In the specific case of Virginia, although it seemed to have ignored the 1818 questionnaire from John Quincy Adams, the record of its legislature shows that Virginia REJECTED the Phantom Amendment. Sussmanbern (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said. Basically, there is no proof that Virginia ratified this proposed amendment and printing the proposal in a copy of the Constitution does not count. If so printing counted as definitive proof of a proposed amendment, every State that ratified the ERA could simply have printed the ERA as part of their copies of the Constitution and thereby caused the ERA to become part of the Constitution even though it never was ratified by three-fourths of the States (as required by Article V). SMP0328. (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

¶ The Phantom Amendment is a favorite fetisch of the Sovereign Citizen types, who hate the legal profession, presumably because people trained in the law refuse to be conned by their amateurish legal theories; but their version also requires that being a lawyer involves a title of nobility which is, moreover, granted by a foreign power; for this, they focuse on "esquire", etc., and the whole fantasy rests on so much nonsense that it cannot stand. Additionally, some of the people promoting this nonsense throw into the mix their notion that, somehow, bankers also have a foreign title of nobility, although they never clarify that assertion - evidently they hate banks too. Sussmanbern (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Effect of the Amendment
The very broad scope of the amendment would presumably have meant that foreign powers could cause mayhem in the United States by unilaterally giving "Titles of Nobility" to US citizens, and so causing them to lose their citizenship. It's expressed as a list of alternatives (it's in the form 'if w, x, y, or z', not 'if w and x and y and z') : so it would take effect if any citizen of the United States shall .... receive ..... any title of nobility or honour: there's nothing there about them having also to accept what is received, though acceptance is also prohibited. Honors and titles, being in their nature abstract rather than material, can be received by someone who does not themself want the title or the honor (a bit like the measles). Especially as in the case of a hereditary title it can simply be inherited, as Tony Benn found out to his cost.

And what do the final words "or either of them" refer to? Thomas Peardew (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Second part first. The words "or either of them" is a reference to the States. Before the Civil War, it was common to use "United States" in the plural tense (e.g., "these United States"). So when TONA says "them", it means the United States (all the States collectively), while "or either of them" means any of the States. As for what "receive" means, it would have had to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Do you receive something when it's given to you or do you have to choose to take possession? Fortunately, we don't have to worry about this (although TONA is technically still before the States for ratification). SMP0328. (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! So either here is simply synonymous with any. It's a little unusual, but, now having looked, I find the OED records two instances where the word is used for larger numbers than two (13, and 3). I wonder whether it is used in this way in other parts of the US Constitution?
 * On the other point, the UK's hereditary titles were certainly both received and retained whether or not they were accepted. In the UK it required primary legislation - the Peerage Act 1963 - to enable sitting members of parliament and others to disclaim their titles in order to be qualified for election as MPs. Of course had this Amendment been ratified, the US Supreme Court might have decided otherwise, but it's a bit of a stretch of language to talk of "taking possession" of something as intangible as a title. Does a woman on marrying "accept, claim, receive or retain" the title "Mrs"?. There are some similarities with the Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, where in one case the MP had been born in Canada to Australian parents who were only briefly there, and who was unaware that she held dual citizenship. Not every country provides a mechanism for renouncing citizenship (just like, before 1963, there was no mechanism in the UK for renouncing a peerage), and some - I think the USA is a case in point - make it difficult and/or expensive. Thomas Peardew (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing needed for "Ratification by an additional 26 states is now needed for its adoption"
This amounts to Original Research. It needs to be supported by references to Reliable Sources. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:2DE2:9B4B:EBEF:5ED2 (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Introduction is a summary of what is in the article; no sourcing needed. The reliable sourcing you seek can be found in the Legislative and ratification history and Misconceptions sections. SMP0328. (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)