Taking Texas And The Nation Back

Can A Knight Be President????

Posted by nytexan on June 7, 2007

Here’s a question for you.  Remember when Rudy G. was knighted by Queen Elizabeth, he was a private citizen then but now he’s gong public again. So…..

…..I started to think about the Constitution, you know that document that doesn’t matter anymore. Well here’s the deal Article 1 Section9  of the U.S. Constitution says:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

1) Did he get permission from Congress to do this? I’m sure he did.

2) Can a U.S. citizen who has been knighted be elected president? I don’t know.

BTW: Rudy can not be called “Sir” because he is a foreigner and it’s an honorary knighthood, but he can use KBE (Knight of the British Empire) behind his name.


3 Responses to “Can A Knight Be President????”

  1. Chris said

    1) Did he get permission from Congress to do this?

    There’s not one congressional record or any evidence at all that Giuliani consulted the US Congress before being knighted.

    The mistake people always make is that it’s just an honorary title and it doesn’t mean anything. The position of Knight Commander is the second highest honor the Queen can bestow. As a KBE his swears the oath of the order “For God and the Empire,” and also has an audience in the queen’s council.

    Article 13, ratified in 1819 and later illegally removed from the Constitution:

    If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain and 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.

  2. nytexan said

    I agree that he has taken an oath to the Queen and is by that alone in violation of Article 13.

    I don’t know about the permission. If there is no record than I think he should be challenged on his run for president.

    He can’t have an oath to the Queen and an oath to our constitution, what’s left of it.

  3. Phreadom said

    I’ve written an article on this that I think addresses both sides of the issue and gives some food for thought.

    I’d like to find some additional information on the supposed Justice Department decision etc if possible.

    That aside, I don’t think it’s a valid statement to say that the original 13th Amendment was “illegally removed” from the Constitution when it cannot be proven that it was ever legally fully ratified. There is plenty of evidence that it was in fact ratified, as a number of publications include it and even go so far as to list the modern 13th Amendment as the 14th Amendment etc, and even the Military Handbook of the era included it… but without actual hard evidence, it may never be conclusively proved one way or the other, and given the number of years that have since passed, and the number of states that have been added to the Union, it may never be officially proven or ratified.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: