Patrick Bellringer

[Nikki]

Perhaps it's because I'm still a newbie to these forums; but sometimes it's tough to distinguish between facetiousness and unhinged rants. There ARE people out there who will focus on ANY words they found to justify their lunacies. In the future, though, I will keep a pinch of salt at my elbow as I read the postings.

Windex and a roll of paper towels are also recommended.

[Prof]

Perhaps it's because I'm still a newbie to these forums; but sometimes it's tough to distinguish between facetiousness and unhinged rants. There ARE people out there who will focus on ANY words they found to justify their lunacies. In the future, though, I will keep a pinch of salt at my elbow as I read the postings.

Windex and a roll of paper towels are also recommended.

You should also keep a spare keyboard or not consume beverages while review postings -- especially those by Webhick.

[Pottapaug1938]

One other funny thing about nutcases who wave the banner of the Original Thirteenth Amendment is that they conveniently forget about the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if the Original Thirteenth Amendment had deprived lawyers, etc. of US citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment would have restored it. But then again, coherent legal scholarship has never been their long suit....

[Imalawman]

One other funny thing about nutcases who wave the banner of the Original Thirteenth Amendment is that they conveniently forget about the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if the Original Thirteenth Amendment had deprived lawyers, etc. of US citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment would have restored it. But then again, coherent legal scholarship has never been their long suit....

I don't think that's it...I think the 13th amendment was a prohibition on titles of nobility. Since lawyers use the term, "esquire", the practice of law as such is unconstitutional. The 14th wouldn't have changed anything if that were true.

[Pottapaug1938]

One other funny thing about nutcases who wave the banner of the Original Thirteenth Amendment is that they conveniently forget about the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if the Original Thirteenth Amendment had deprived lawyers, etc. of US citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment would have restored it. But then again, coherent legal scholarship has never been their long suit....

I don't think that's it...I think the 13th amendment was a prohibition on titles of nobility. Since lawyers use the term, "esquire", the practice of law as such is unconstitutional. The 14th wouldn't have changed anything if that were true.

Well, I just found the text of the mythical amendment online, and here is what it says:

"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."

Thus (first pretending that these nutcases are correct in their analyses), anyone who accepts the title of nobility known as Esquire "cease(s) to be a citizen of the United States".

[Imalawman]

One other funny thing about nutcases who wave the banner of the Original Thirteenth Amendment is that they conveniently forget about the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if the Original Thirteenth Amendment had deprived lawyers, etc. of US citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment would have restored it. But then again, coherent legal scholarship has never been their long suit....

I don't think that's it...I think the 13th amendment was a prohibition on titles of nobility. Since lawyers use the term, "esquire", the practice of law as such is unconstitutional. The 14th wouldn't have changed anything if that were true.

Well, I just found the text of the mythical amendment online, and here is what it says:

"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."

Thus (first pretending that these nutcases are correct in their analyses), anyone who accepts the title of nobility known as Esquire "cease(s) to be a citizen of the United States".

Right, but I was under the impression that it wasn't so much that lawyers weren't citizens, but that they can't be senators, officers of the court, judges, etc. etc. I don't think they really care about being citizens. Been a while since I've reviewed the "why lawyers suck" theories...

[grixit]

Well, I just found the text of the mythical amendment online, and here is what it says:

"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."

Thus (first pretending that these nutcases are correct in their analyses), anyone who accepts the title of nobility known as Esquire "cease(s) to be a citizen of the United States".

Two things:

1. The part about losing citizenship must have been added because it wasn't in the original, that was just about not being able to hold office.

2. Esquire is not a title of nobility, nor is it conferred by anyone. Anyone who wants to may call themselves that, whether or not they are a lawyer. You, for instance.

[Pottapaug1938]

I did mention that I was using the nutcases' analysis of the word "Esquire". I indeed have used it; but generally today I used it only for comic effect.