"Thank you for providing us with the benefit of your excellent research. Your further explanation with its possibilities was very enlightening, thoughtful and credible! ... and very much appreciated. Perhaps you could enlighten us further on how this might be approached."

First of all, one of the most important areas of inquiry revolves around establishing that Constitutional Amendments go into effect at the time they are ratified by the requisite number of States, which means only those States which had the authority to participate in the Article V amending process: various court decisions have shown, definitely, that this is true. It isn't when a federal official who is designated by law to announce it, actually does announce it, nor when the President proclaims it, nor when Congress takes a vote to decide that it should be in effect regardless of its ratification status (i.e., the bogus or so-called Fourteenth Amendment). Right now, people are listening and reading their constitutions and learning all that they should have been taught in the public schools -- are weren't.

"I mean, how does one (or many) go about causing a lawful 'coup' using the original 13th Amendment?"

By definition, a coup d'etat is excluded from consideration: the whole point of the long struggle to ascertain the true status of this article of Amendment was to establish its bona fides as a part of the foundation law for the union. Therefore, what we are discussing here is a coup de main, a "sudden enterprise or effort," as defined by Webster's. Every aspect of the known lawful considerations has been researched, sought, compared and evaluated for legitimacy. The work as completed only last year and especially last summer has sealed the "leaks" in the argument and in the lawful status.

To repeat: the first version of an article like this was drawn up during the drafting process for the Bill of Rights; the versions considered later were mostly proposed by lawfully seated Senators in the Eleventh Congress, and a select committee was empowered to assay these proposals and decide on the final form.

That language was passed by the Senate in April of 1810 with only one vote dissenting and with seven Senators absent or not voting, including both members from Vermont (the reasons for their being absent are unclear). Both Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were represented on the working committee and in the Senate.

The House passed it by 87 to 3 with numerous members absent. It was properly issued and sent to the States for action by their Legislatures. Both houses of the Georgia Legislature concurred in its approval by a unanimous vote! Maryland approved it on Christmas Day in 1810. It was an extremely important measure.

There is the War of 1812 to blame for its long delay, and the pridefulness of Virginia, which wanted to be the one to cast the deciding approval for the original Constitution, but was edged out by New Hampshire. And, as it happens, New Hampshire was the 12th of 13 needed to ratify it, at the end of 1812. There is every indication that Virginia's lawmakers had it in mind to be the ones to approve this measure, but events of the war simply delayed action on it until the whole Virginia code was ready to be voted upon as a revised body of laws, with it included en bloc and approved by a lawful action (although not, apparently, by a recorded vote). Thus, the date of the approval of the Revised Code has been set as the date of final ratification, 3/12/1819.

The Legislature of South Carolina has original jurisdiction over this article of Amendment, having tabled the matter with a State Senate approval recorded, in 1814. The case could be made that all that is required to force the federal authorities to recant their refutations -- all of which are based on faulty and incomplete records in the office of the Secretary of State -- is for the House of Representatives of South Carolina to take it up and vote on it! Logic might dictate that their State Senate also re-vote the issue, despite the fact that we are contending it is lawful and has been so since that time in 1819. It may, in fact, be necessary under the rules of the South Carolina Senate to do that very thing. In any event, since the Palmetto State never actually left the union -- sayeth Andrew Johnson on April 2, 1866 in a Presidential Proclamation -- their chain of custody of this lawful article remains unbroken. Likewise, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut all voted to reject this article, which leaves them with original jurisdiction, too.

The South Carolina House is led by a Republican speaker, the State overwhelmingly supports George W. Bush, and the main propositions put forward against the Bush family entail their payments to others and not their own collections of emoluments.

Politically speaking, the reality of this amendment requires action by coup de main, by a sudden enterprise and a sudden effort -- because the slow and steady work of talking to people and sending out e-mails on the subject has been done, and has been largely unsuccessful. Right now, people are quite ready to believe that they haven't been getting the truth about their government for a long time: the fact is -- that millions of citizens didn't know what, exactly, the Electoral College really wass or is, or how it works, prior to last week! One more set of facts on the subject would not be burdensome, right now!

The key words are its guarantees of free and fair elections, the need to protect the voting process in the States and especially with regard to the Electors and their certification: those are the very places where clever agents of influence or destruction would try to suborn our citizens. The original Thirteenth was set up to protect the electorate from having corrupted State house and senate elections, thus affecting all aspects of the federal union and its representatives; the amendment is also designed to protect with an ironclad reassurance, the fidelity of our military and naval officers, and federal civil officials.

The amendment is not "an anti-lawyer" manifesto and it doesn't make doctors with honorary degrees into non-citizens; it does not prevent or prohibit the formation of civic virtue through associations like the Elks, the Optimists, the Lions Club or the Knights of Columbus, St. Patrick, or Lithuania. Not a one of these organizations creates a separate or special class of citizenship, a special standing in courts, or property rights not enjoyed by non-members within the several States.

The argument can be made that it does specifically prohibit the formation of secret military-style associations, and it surely puts the kibosh on the Klaverns of the Ku Klux Klan. The many officers of that august organization all enjoy Titles of Honour which are patterned on English military awards, and which do bestow special standing in the courts of the States, de facto.

The original Thirteenth was designed to be a bulwark against foreign meddling in our elections, our legislative sessions, our property patents and assignments, and to protect our federal officers from being tempted by corrupt dictators and freebooters.

There must be a handle on this issue somewheres in that list of protections: there must be a spark which ignites the coup de main and forces, nay, flushes the deadwood and the driftwood out of the halls of Congress and out onto the public beaches!

"Wouldn't we have to take it to the Justice Department?"

No. The Department of Justice has no jurisdiction over the approval of this matter or its record-keeping process. All of that lies in the Secretary of State and in the federal archives.

Taking it to a court requires finding a court where it can be inserted as part of the testimony or evidence pertaining to the trial or suit at hand: judges are deathly afraid of having this issue tested in court, just as they are afraid of passing any judgements on the legitimacy of the bogus Fourteenth Amendment.