I'm sure many reading this think "what happened to the old Republican Party?" I used to have that reaction to that nuttiness, thinking back to my great-great-great grandfather, a Quaker abolitionist who was one of the founders of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania in 1855.

However, if you read "Team of Rivals," you find out that that old party was an amalgamation of business interests (ex-Whigs), abolitionists and other social reformers, and the Know-Nothing Party, and that the participation of he Know-Nothings was a source of concern at the time, though eventually they took anyone who agreed with any part of the platform.

We can see today that the ex-Whigs, who became the corporatist end of the party and were dominant from the Civil War on, and the Know-Nothings, who have always been around, have become the two dominant wings, while the reformers no longer exist in that party. Add in the unreconstructed Confederates, and you have today's modern Republican Party. But remember this party's roots go back to the beginning.

All that's missing is an amendment to allow presidents to unilaterally amend the constitution. That way a republican pres would be able to amend the constitution to the teapartiers specs, and then amend it on his last day in office (if he hadn't gotten rid of the term limit amendment) so the power to amend is nullifyied.

It's perfect. It's like using one of your three wishes to wish for more wishes. What could possibly go wrong?

Oh, and while they're at it, that darned old Magna Carta needs to be finally fixed - the nerve of that king granting habeas corpus to those lesser nobles! Now that began this slippery slope we've been on the past 800 years in granting equality under the law, and those other amendments to our citizenry! -Kevo

Er, the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to whom?

TONA is still out there somewhere, as it has never received the required 3/4ths of the states for passage.

This Titles or Nobility Acts as been floating around since 1810 and would have been the 13th Amendment, had it received the necessary votes. However, as it lingered and more states were added to the Union, the 3/4ths issue never was resolved. This one is neither aimed at General Swartzkoff nor Rudy. It is targeted for the Peace Prize accepted by President Obama.

This inspired me to go check out New Mexico's GOP platform. Only one new amendment is endorsed here: an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. No repeals.

"We call for the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th Amendment in today's Constitution."

This sounds like they want to replace the 13th Ammendment banning slavery with the one stripping citizenship from anyone accepting any title of nobility or honor from a foreign government. In other words, they won't come right out and say so, but they want to bring back slavery.

That sounds too crazy for even the Iowa Republican Party, but then I have been thinking that about a lot of things the Republican Party stands for these days.

What we really need are term limits applicable to members of Congress - like the Right promised to do following the 1994 elections.

I'm pretty sure that the original 13th amendment was to prevent any future amendment from banning slavery. That was getting ready to be put in when the Civil War started. Then, the 'final' 13th amendment was essentially the exact opposite.

" This one is neither aimed at General Swartzkoff nor Rudy. It is targeted for the Peace Prize accepted by President Obama."

Thanks bert, I couldn't figure out any more than Benen could why they really cared about this issue. It's still crazy thinking on their part, but not quite as crazy as the the one I suggested in my previous post.

Interesting that in the discussions held in Congress over whether an amendment, such as the one against slavery should be necessary, the word "slavery" was frowned upon. So, words such as "indentured servitude", "forced labor" were used. But, the gem was "selected types of social characteristics". I can imagine hearing such from Rep. King and former Rep. Tancredo

Ah, found this online at: http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-13.html

Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read: "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." (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.

Gotta love the one about "persons born in the United States who are foreigners."

How can someone born here be a "foreigner"?

How can someone born here be a "foreigner"?

After the white man did all the "hard work" of clearing out "injuns" and transplanting "negros" you can see how they're now eager to put a freeze on citizenship.

I read discussion somewhere that the titles/nobilities thing was actually aimed at lawyers, since they use the "title" of esquire. I have no idea if that's true or how it could be expected by anyone of sense to keep lawyers out of elected office, but then I read the entire Iowa Republican platform and sensible isn't exactly a relevant term. They also want to prohibit govt funds going to such private advocacy groups as acorn and aclu (doesn't ACLU get govt money?) but then specifically call for govt funds to go to church run schools. Consistency, thy name is not Republican.

So, Iowa Republicans think Americans should not be allowed to accept Nobel Prizes, huh. Interesting that the GOBP continue to want to destroy science - what better way to continue than to take the top prize of scientific accomplishment away from them.

At least you can understand why Reagan forbade any photographs being taken when he kneeled to the Queen of England to accept his Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath award.

Interesting your mention of the Queen and Reagan, mike, as the original TONA was meant to stop Americans from being able to accept titles from the British, as the government of 1810 was facing the oncoming War of 1812. I can not recall which state didn't ratify this then 13th Amendment in order to qualify under the 3/4ths rule, but, TONA was never considered to be added the anti-slavery amendment during the 1864 discussions which is our present 13th Amendment. However, the RepuGs of Iowa are really reaching for an excuse to get rid of our President.

(doesn't ACLU get govt money?)

I think you meant to ask Does the ACLU get Gov money?

And the answer is no. Except when they sue the gov't and are awarded money for legal fees.

Yes, I did mean, "do they get money", thanks. Fat fingered that. I am always amazed at the people who claim to be libertarian and against government overreach, but who hate the ACLU. It makes no sense.

The Constitution already forbids government officials from receiving gifts from foreign nations. Also, no one stopped Theodore Roosevelt from claiming his prize in 1906.

Also, I thought it was Buchanan who signed the "other" other 13th Amendment.

Yes, Colin Day, Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 do prohibit as you mention, but, the original 13th Amendment would have expanded upon those sections.

Some have argued that this amendment was originally proposed to stop the "Duchess of Baltimore" from receiving a title from the Bonapartes and recognition of her child as royalty. Fortunately, three states, including New York rejected ratification, while South Carolina muddied the waters by having one House ratify, while the Lower House rejected the act. However, if the Iowa RepuGs could talk 26 more states in ratifying this amendment, then, we would have a new amendment. This could become a "When Pigs of Iowa Fly" moment.

@ Lloyd the Idiot
What we really need are term limits applicable to members of Congress - like the Right promised to do following the 1994 elections.

The Supremes found congressional term limits unconstitutional, at least when applied by state statute or state constitutional amendment. Several states tried and were slapped down.

Federally imposed limits are likely constitutional, but guess what body would have to pass it.

Yeah, right.

Well, thank gawd for Iowans, not only can you get queer married in their state but you can also find lunatic relics from another reality! It's like a fine wine, yet perfectly unbalanced. Hey California, you fully awake yet or is your unhinged neo-clown still doing all the talking?
Fiorina for Senate! BA ha ha ha ha!

I also think the Ten Commandments should be changed to fit with God's original intent ("Thou Shalt Not Kill" was added by liberal do-gooders and never meant to be part of God's law).

...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."

I'm guessing it's this one, not the foreign-titles one Original 13th, and it's aimed at putting gay marriage bans out of Federal reach.

I'll give them the original Thirteenth Amendment if I can have the Equal Rights Amendment in return.

Davis X. Machina wrote: it's aimed at putting gay marriage bans out of Federal reach.

Bingo. Nobel Prize has nothing to do with it, as that is not a "title" or bestowing of "nobility" status. A Nobel Prize is just an award. But same-sex marriage? If you really want to put a rat up an Iowa Republican's pants leg, that's the issue to do it with.

Couching it all in the arcane language of the "original 13th Amendment" is just dog-whistle politics, like the whole Dred Scott v. Sandford/Roe v. Wade parallel. They're trying to rile up the TeaBaggers without anyone else noticing that they're gay-bashing again.

Signed by Lincoln, too. Can't beat that.

So, I guess it depends on which "original 14th Ammendment" they want to pass. There must be somebody around here that is on the right-wing email lists who can tell us what they are saying in semi-private.

Gah, last comment should have said "orginal 13th Ammedment"

The Tea Party will never promote this agenda.

Their base relies on an appeal to some idealized version of either the 1950s or the 1980s, depending on the age of the supporter. They really can't command much support for an argument that implies that the 50s and 80s were both screwed up because the Constitution sucked then.