> To reiterate: Regardless, the terms "Attorney at law," or "Esq," are still in use in the USA today. One is bestowed said honorific by an "entity," which is called the "Bar Association." The beginning of my position was that such titled individuals were once prohibited from holding public office.

The term "esquire" is not bestowed by the bar. It something some lawyers affix to their names, but it doesn't have any more legal significance than any other informal, unofficial, honorific (e.g. "professor"). It did have such significance in the U.K., but never in the U.S. to my knowledge. "Attorney at law" is not an honorific but an advertisement of licensure, like "certified public accountant" or "certified financial planner" or "registered nurse" or "professional engineer." At no point in U.S. history were attorneys ever prohibited from holding public office. Indeed, it's interesting to note that in both the 1st Congress (1789-91) and the 112th Congress (2011-12), exactly 37% of each body was lawyers.

The "titles of nobility or honor" that are referred to in the text you cited are things like "Duke" or "Earl."

So the adreesing of a Judge or Magistrate as "Your Honor" is not an "Honorific?"

And the term "Esquire" is not deferential to the authority of one who is addressed as "Your Honor?"

http://kellenebishop.com/2009/04/22/what-if-lawyers-were-for...

According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.

By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.

If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant.

For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy.

As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).

And now you've descended into tinfoil hattery, using the classic technique of tinfoil hatters: punning on the words "honor" and "privilege."

1) Lawyers don't enjoy any special protections from lawsuits. The only special privilege they enjoy is practicing law, just as doctors enjoy the privilege to practice medicine, or professional engineers enjoy the privilege to sign off on certain building projects.

2) The partial immunity of government officials and judges in the scope of their official duties is contemporaneous with the founding, so it's unlikely that the founders would have objected to it. It was so pervasive that if the founders had intended to abrogate it, they would have done so explicitly.

It's a very old principle of legal interpretation that when words are arranged in a series, they should be read consistently with each other. So in the phrase "titles of nobility or honor," "honor" must be read in the context of "nobility." What is a noble? A noble is someone with certain intrinsic privileges. Informal honorifics, like "doctor" or "professor" or "reverend" or "judge" are not "honors" in the sense of the language in the proposed 13th amendment, because they're terms of politeness directed to the office, not the person.

LoL

Thanks for taking the time to help me see your points.

However:

So in the phrase "titles of nobility or honor," "honor" must be read in the context of "nobility."

I don't see why "honor" must be read in the context of "nobility" when there is an exclusive conjunction joining the two words. I interpret the meaning to be "titles" which may be "noble," or "honor" related.

Anyhow, hope you're having a good day today, Aloha.