Since there never was such an amendment, there was no need to remove it from the Constitution.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

Why?

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

Or, more practically, we prevent lawyers because William J. Clinton and his entire Cabinet were lawyers.

Bubba also pledged to have "the most ethical administration in history."

Only a Dem can't figure this out.

__________________
Delivering tasty bite-sized Clues to liberals since 1965.

It's probably a fine line, but number one, the amendment falls in line with the original intent of the Constitution because all nobility titles were supposed to be banned.

This does not restrict liberty in that regard. No one should have a special class and title that grants them special status over others, either real or perceived.

"To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order... [The purpose of the prohibition on titles of nobility is the state constitution] is to preserve the equality of citizens in respect to their public and private rights."

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

What about doctors, ministers, mechanics, college graduates...
The list goes on. There are all kinds of licenses that create such illusory statuses.
Perhaps we should just let anyone run and vote against them if we don't like them.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I think it would actually be just the opposite. Laws would be written in more simple language that would be easily understood as unconstitutional.

What you fail to acknowledge is that most every single law being passed these days is unconstitutional. The only Congressman who actually votes on laws based on constitutionality is Ron Paul - and that's why he's known as "Dr. No" on the hill.

Probably people that aren't as money, power or status oriented as lawyers. What is so wonderful about the lawyers and judges in our system now? It's thoroughly corrupt, as you can see here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20262

We have MASSIVE corruption in the legal system. What is all this alleged legal knowledge getting us? Apparently not much.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Licenses, but not nobility titles. Hang on though - I'm about to go into more detail.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

You find everything that differs from the opinions you already hold difficult to believe. You should take a lesson from Samuel Johnson:

"Among the innumerable mortifications which waylay human arrogance on every side may well be reckoned our ignorance of the most common objects
and effects, a defect of which we become more sensible by every attempt to supply it. Vulgar and inactive minds confound familiarity with knowledge
and conceive themselves informed of the whole nature of things when they are shown their form or told their use; but the speculatist, who is not content with superficial views, harasses himself with fruitless curiosity, and still, as he inquires more, perceives only that he knows less."

True, but some of the Founders weren't lawyers, and even some that were recognized a problem with the system.

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

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Emphasis added.}

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

Not so.

Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (177; Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.

http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-02.html

Again, all the information has to be considered in its totality. I really don't want to copy & paste each section of the entire link here, but if you don't read it all, you're not going to understand the issue. The international bar association link is especially critical.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

We certainly all have the right to disagree with one another, and I respect yours and Java Black's opinions, but please read my threads on judicial corruption and fiat currency/central banking:

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=19960

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20262

And then read EVERY WORD of every section of the original link I posted on this issue:

http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html

Then fully consider everything you read, and get back to me on it.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

How.... Communist.

__________________
Man up.