Is it time for a constitutional convention called by the people re: illegal immigration?

[Jim Robinson]

Just heard O'Reilly say that even though over 75% of the American people are opposed to illegal immigration, the Congress is unwilling to do anything about it. Now we all know that it is highly unlikely that representatives of either party are willing to commit to any meaningful immigration reform, so is it time for we the people through our state legislatures (requires two thirds of the states) to call for a convention to propose a constitutional amendment defining the federal government's role and responsibility for defending our borders? If so, how should such an amendment be worded and how would we go about getting two thirds of the state legislatures to act?

---

The essay below was posted by Publius at reply number 253:

To: Jim Robinson

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the First Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
--Article V of the Constitution of the United States

The Founding Fathers left us two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution.

1. The Congressional Method requires both Houses of Congress to approve a proposed amendment by a two-thirds vote. For over two hundred years, Americans have chosen to use this particular method to amend the Constitution, but it is not the only method established in Article V.
2. The Convention Method requires that the legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply for an Article V Convention. According to Hamilton, Madison and other Founders, along with several US Supreme Court decisions, Congress is then obliged to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states would send delegates to the convention who would in turn propose amendments directly, bypassing Congress.

The Framers also left us two methods to ratify amendments, and they authorized Congress to decide which method was appropriate. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress is limited to choosing one of the two methods.

1. The Legislative Method requires the legislatures of three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposed amendment.
2. The Ratifying Convention Method requires the ratifying conventions of three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposed amendment. The Ratifying Convention Method has been used only twice in our history: once to ratify the Constitution itself, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

One thing is perfectly clear: Article V gives the States Assembled in Convention the same proposal rights as Congress -- no more, no less. And no matter whether an amendment originates with Congress or a Convention for Proposing Amendments, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states before it can become part of the Constitution.

The Framers’ Safety Valve

Fearing a tyrannical Congress would block the amendment process, the Framers formulated Article V, wording it so as to fence off the Constitution from hostile or careless hands. They were careful to enumerate Three Forbidden Subjects.

1. Altering the arrangement known as slavery until 1808, a ban that has been lifted both by time and war.
2. Altering the arrangement of equal representation in the Senate.
3. Writing a new constitution.

The last Forbidden Subject is implied, rather than explicit, like the first two. The Framers took great pains to avoid using the term “constitutional convention”. Instead, the Founding Document refers to a “Convention for proposing Amendments...as part of this Constitution”. An Article V Convention is strictly limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of 1787, and it is forbidden to consider, compose, or even discuss a new constitution. No matter what amendments may be proposed, the Constitution must remain intact, else the actions of the convention become unconstitutional. Unless Article V is amended first to allow it, a Convention for Proposing Amendments can never become a true constitutional convention, i.e., it can never write a new constitution. And neither can Congress.

How It Would Work

The Founding Document is silent about a Convention for Proposing Amendments, except for establishing its existence and the criterion of its call by Congress. But some things can be extrapolated from the Constitution.

1. Delegates would be elected by the people, not appointed by a governor or state legislature. The sovereignty possessed by an Article V Convention is identical and equal to Congress’ as far as the amendatory process is concerned. As citizens are elected to Congress, so it must be for convention delegates.
2. Delegates would be apportioned to the states on the basis of population according to the Supreme Court’s “one man/one vote” decision. One possible formula would elect a delegate from each congressional district and two from each state, thus reflecting the makeup of the Electoral College.
3. An Article V Convention is the property of the states, and the language used by the states to request Congress to call a convention defines the purview of that convention. In its petitioning language, the states may ask for a convention to address one subject, a plethora of subjects, or even ask for a general convention to address any subject, i.e. a revision of the Constitution.
4. Upon convening, a Convention for Proposing Amendments would elect its own officers and establish its own rules of order. Because an Article V Convention, during the brief period of its existence, possesses the same sovereignty as the other three branches of government, Congress would not have the right to regulate it or restrict its purview. There is nothing threatening here, because according to Article V, Congress possesses identical powers.
5. Amendment proposals would go through deliberation and vigorous debate as would any amendment proposed in Congress. The convention would determine the bar for approving an amendment proposal to pass it on to the states for ratification. This could be a simple majority, a two-thirds majority, or anything that the convention chose.
6. Once all amendment proposals had been passed to the states for ratification or rejected, the convention would adjourn permanently, and the delegates would become ordinary citizens again.
7. Congress would then submit the proposed amendments to the Several States by deciding whether the states should use the Legislative Method or Ratifying Convention Method of ratification.
8. If Congress chooses the Ratifying Convention Method, each state would hold an election for delegates to its state ratifying convention, which would be apportioned according to population.
9. Each state legislature (or state ratifying convention, if Congress so chose) would vote up or down on each proposed amendment. If three-fourths of the states ratified an amendment proposal, it would become part of the Constitution.

The Practical Side of a Convention for Proposing Amendments

Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution prevents a sitting congressman or senator from taking a seat as a delegate at a Convention for Proposing Amendments unless he first resigns his seat in Congress. It is safe to say that few would be willing to give up the permanent power of Congress for the transitory power of an Article V Convention.

So who would be elected by the states? Yourself, your friends, and your neighbors.

There would be no need for a party endorsement or a campaign war chest. Anyone who raised a vast sum of money or took campaign contributions from vested interests would immediately fall under suspicion. After all, an Article V Convention is about the Constitution, not pork, perks and personal power.

Anyone who wishes to run for Convention Delegate will have to know his Constitution. He will have to express strong positions on possible amendment proposals and be able to defend those positions in public. He can’t hedge, waffle or use weasel words. Before the election, voters are sure to ask the candidate to submit his favorite amendment proposals in writing, which is the best way to avoid the slippery language of politics.

Most importantly, the candidate for Convention Delegate will have to be a person of integrity, respected in his community. And that eliminates most careerists of the current political class.

The conservative caricature of an Article V Convention is a disorderly mob of statists from Massachusetts, welfare recipients from New York, and New Agers and illegal aliens from California.

The liberal caricature of a convention is a gaggle of socially maladjusted individualists from Arizona, American Gothics from Indiana, Christers from Kansas, Johnny Rebs from South Carolina, and bearskin-clad mountain men from Alaska.

And to 49 states, the name of Texas conjures up the image of sharp businessmen skinning the other delegates out of their eye teeth.

They will all be there, and that is as it should be. At an Article V Convention, everyone will have an opportunity to make his case. And everyone will have to lay his cards on the table.

Here is a possible selection of things that one could expect at a convention.

1. A delegate from New York will introduce an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
2. A delegate from Georgia will counter with an amendment to remove the Militia Clause from the same amendment.
3. A delegate from North Carolina will introduce an amendment to extend the 14th Amendment to the unborn.
4. A delegate from New Jersey will counter with an amendment to legalize abortion on demand.
5. Hawaii will introduce an amendment to abolish the death penalty.
6. Oregon will revive the Equal Rights Amendment.
7. Maryland will attempt to give the District of Columbia statehood.
8. Illinois will introduce an amendment creating an explicit right to privacy.
9. Virginia will attempt to ban flag burning.
10. Alabama will try to ban unfunded mandates.
11. Utah will attempt to restrict executive orders.
12. Florida will try to ban asset forfeiture.
13. South Carolina will attempt to codify a state’s right to secede.
14. Delegates will introduce amendments to impose term limits on members of Congress, require a balanced budget, make treaties subservient to the Constitution, change or abolish the Electoral College, and repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.

But it’s a safe bet that only congressional term limits, a balanced budget, repeal of the income tax, a fix to the border problem, and one or more possible solutions to the problem of the Electoral College will get out of convention and be sent to the states for ratification.

And it's possible that none of the proposed amendments will receive the three-fourths ratification necessary to add them to the Constitution!

So why go through all this?

Because we as Americans need to know that our system works for us. Recent events have placed doubts in many minds, and there are those among us who would argue that the system does not work anymore and needs to be changed.

Perhaps.

But that is the beauty of the Constitution of the United States. It is designed to be changed by the people, either through their national government or -- should that government fail to satisfy their mandate -- through a second system of amendment. The Framers bequeathed us two methods of amendment so that our government and its actions will always be under our control, not the government’s.

Perhaps it’s time for the American people to show that government who’s in charge.

253 posted on 03/27/2006 7:59:45 PM PST by Publius

[Publius]

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the First Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
--Article V of the Constitution of the United States

[Willie Green]

Can you say wandering in a liberal/socialist wilderness for the next forty years?

And Dubya's NWO is different how?

[Bernard Marx]

Enforcement of existing laws is all that's needed. Unfortuntely, to accomplish that the voters will have to punish the people who aren't doing what they were elected to do. Whether the voters have the will and tenacity to do their job is the real question. They keep re-electing the same bought-and-paid-for hacks over and over and over. Isn't doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results the definition of insanity?

[detsaoT]

Agreed—Turning on the Republicans is definitely not an option, as that merely gives control back to the Democrats. If you think we've got it bad now, just think back to the 70's. (shudder)

We could potentially start an immigration party, or a "Western Cultural Preservation" party, if you will, but I don't forsee it being of much use until there's enough of a momentum against immigration to offset the monetary corruption prevalent in the other two parties...

[Reily]

If there was a constitutional convention can you imagine the moonbats that would come out from under rocks and demand that they not only attend BUT dominate. Soros money also would probably also be used to insure we would be saddled with a European system.

[momf]

I sincerely doubt that many people contact their representatives and senators to express their opinions, wishes. That would be a good first step...if a large percentage of the population would send in 2 pennies with a note "My two cents" and tell them what they wanted done would draw attention. AND remind them they serve at OUR pleasure (supposedly). If we had the fortitude to actually fire them when they don't follow our wishes.

[ClaireSolt]

I think we need a way for citizens to report illegal crimes, including workplaces who are not hiring Americans. A hotline that is responsive.

[Pukin Dog]

* Declare illegal immigrants as "trespassers" and arrest them when they congregate

* TAX the hell out of international wire transfers. There is NO reason NOT to do this, as this is THE reason most of these "migrant workers" are here ANYWAY—Make money off of the rich gringos and wire it south to "mi familia"

* Aggresively prosecute housing code violations, and ensure that neighborhoods and cities don't become barrios

On the first one, you will have due-process issues. On the second one, you will have discrimination problems if you restrict this tax to Hispanics, so everyone will have to suffer for the crimes of a few. On the third one, you have the same issue as the second one. Some judge will toss them out as 'profiling'.

[jude24]

A Constitutional Convention is a bad idea. As far as I am aware, you cannot restrict the scope of the proposed amendments it can consider. It might come up with some good solutions to the illegal immigration problem, but you'll also get changes no one on this board would like. Bank on it.

[21stCenturion]

As already indicated, above, there is significant difficulty inherent in convening a Constitutional Convention. Simply put, this Convention can do ANYTHING, not limited to any particular topic, and there is no obvious or practical way to prevent a plethora of single-issue agendists from hijacking our precious Constitution into oblivion.

I took a solemn oath upon enlisting into the Air Force -- lo these many years ago -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I shed the blue suit long since but I have NEVER relinquished this oath. It guides me explicitly when I vote and informs whatever political positions or actions I take.

Enforce the laws we already have. Dispose of the 'anchor babies' concept, regardless of the parents' country of origin. REQUIRE valid picture ID for voting. Beyond that, hold out for better Representatives, Senators and Judges / Justices who put America first. Otherwise, throw the bums out.

Meaningful 'term limits' are only the next election away ...

[jeremiah]

How about a couple of million people get together, and make citizen arrests of illegals. If they cannot prove they are citizens, we lease buses, and drive them to the border. This may not rid us of the illegals, but it will get some attention, and galvanize support for the cause. This is beyond the "ballot" stage, and has now reached the "tea in the harbor" stage.

[Marine Inspector]

The only convention that needs to be implemented is one where we kick out every last loser who won't listen to the people who put them into office.

Agreed. Too bad it won't happen.

[ozarkgirl]

consistent policy of voting against any and every officeholder who devalues American citizenship, starting with our contemptible, feckless U.S. Senate.

Well said.

[detsaoT]

If Arkansas (not exactly a shining example of prudence in selecting its Governor) welcomes illegals, why don't you move to Texas? Or Oklahoma? Or better yet, Mississippi?

There are quite a few States in that region that are politically more realistic than Arkansas, aren't there? :)

[ConsentofGoverned]

I had a dream that thousands and thousands of Americans from all our states met on the boarder and held hands in a line that stretches from Texas to California..with American flags flying and all of us guarding our own border
I had a dream.

[visualops]

Thanks for the heads up- I wasn'r aware of what GA was/is doing.
Maybe we can get SC on the ball as well.
Our Gov is a pretty sharp guy.

[pissant]

Who would you rather see RIGHT now as President, may I ask?

[Jim Robinson]

"And Dubya's NWO is different how?"

Roberts, Alito, and hundreds of other federal judgeships. A judge is forever and forever is a long time.

[TWfromTEXAS]

you cannot call a constitutional convention and limit it to one topic. everything would be on the table and there is no telling what we would end up with.

[harpo11]

When I see illegal aliens parading, protesting and flauting American laws hoisting the Mexican flag in our faces I think I'm living in a country with out laws, with out representation and with out a Constitution that generations of brave Americans fought and sacrificed their lives to defend and protect.

The sacred oath of office that each elected official recites is nothing but meaningless blather.

We entrusted our representatives and mostly our President to dutifully honor and uphold the rule of law. It appears our trust is foolish, misguided and totally not welcome. They will do whatever, whenever and however they can to protect their own political interests and careers.

Congress, the Office of the President and the Judiciary have opened the floodgates against the desires of the majority of American citizens and I do not see our representatives other than a few dedicated men and women willing to stem the relentless tide of illegal immigration. They are ridiculed and impugned by their own political parties.

I have not answered your guestion and only have written of deep despair and confusion. I am very saddened that American Citizens have been thrust into this turbulent cesspool wilfully created by our own representatives.

[Jim Noble]

All that is required is that 218 representatives and 51 Senators who are not Democrats or Republicans be elected, and everything will change.

In fact, electing 100-125 unaffiliated Members would probably do the trick. The Constitution is as good as human devising can make it, and does not require any changes to end illegal immigration.

Instead of pea-brains "running for President" (as if), what is required is a national organization dedicated to electing Members of Congress. It is going to take years to overthrow the government legally, at the ballot box, but now no one is even trying.