Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 03/27/2006 5:46:36 PM PST by Jim Robinson

Edited on 03/27/2006 8:53:53 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: aliens; aztlan; borders; concon; constitution; defendingborders; immigrantlist; immigration; invasion; reconquista
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 421-431 next last
To: Jim Robinson
I think each of us can start by calling these weakwilled senators and demanding they resign.
201 posted on 03/27/2006 7:17:10 PM PST by GarySpFc (de oppresso liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

We just need an Amendment compelling the President and Congress to obey and enforce the laws we already have. /ng


202 posted on 03/27/2006 7:17:24 PM PST by Pelham ("Borders? We don' need no stinking borders!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"...We must eliminate as many liberal activist judges as humanly possible. We only have a chance of doing this with a Republican president and Senate...

While the idea of a constitutional convention would be laudable, the lack of any balanced "education" about such an undertaking, given the horrendous bias of the media, would render it as dangerous, right now, as many have posted here. But the threat, the conversation to do so, may have it's own effect.

The key to any damage control situation, in order to keep the ship afloat during a battle, is to evaluate what we cannot remain "afloat and in the fight" without, and separate that from those items that are merely damned important, and heartbreaking to have to temporarily do without. If we can't cut to the chase, and build a wall, then we cannot stand against a media-manufactured tide.

The GOP right now is nervous that the bottom threatens to drop out of their support. The Senate seems especially vulnerable, since they are the most comfortable right now in their encumbency.

If the disillusioned among us can band together, and forcefully state to the Senators, up for re-election this election cycle, that certain things are mandatory, and not subject to negotiation, between the party base and their Republican Senators, then we have a chance- perhaps our only chance-, of forcing the issues most critical to us.

Newt Gingrich captured the hearts and minds of many Republicans, (and created many new Republicans), with his "Contract with America".

If we can establish, like he and a few planners did in their back yards, a similar baseline "Contract with Tomorrow", (substituting some much more clever name), and get a large, enthusiastic backing of many Freepers who currently differ greatly from each other... then the "contract" would stand a great chance of being polished and refined by the various and considerable talent here, and swelling into a movement similar in scope to Newt's contract.

Don't laugh immediately... it brought many like me into the party. If done with vigor, planning and especially maturity-it could pull us back from the brink.

I'm going to be so presumptious to start the first three absolutes, and wait for those who can eloquently talk the rest of us out of including such wild ideas.

"Whereas, any nation that wishes to remain sovereign must exercise their duties to that sovereignty, primary of which is the elevation of citizenship itself to a coveted and revered status; ... the acceptance of new citizens into the country must therefore pass strictures laid down by the representatives of the people according to the wishes of the electorate, the enforcement of which shall be unfailingly monitored and enforced, subject to constitutional compliance and current law. Any representative from the Republican Party, who wishes to draw upon the support of the voters must show by his words and his deeds an unfailing adherence to such responsibility."

"Whereas the defense of the United States Constitution lay first in the hands of a Superior Court of Justices, who swear to faithfully interpret, and thereby uphold and defend that Constitution... any representative from the Republican Party, who wishes to draw upon the support of the voters must demonstrate his utmost,faithful and unceasing efforts to safeguard that those jurists appointed to the highest Court of the Nation, are selected for their defense of that Constitution, as it was written, and as it provided the contract of our birthright."

Etc, etc. "We, the voters can brook no exceptions to these minimum demonstrations of the fitness for the good offices for which you seek."

This is 5 minutes typing, but many more could polish this into "our contract with them", and apply enough pressure to force the issue. Forgive my typos- you get the idea.

Please feel free to add, remove or substitute. Only by forcing a few planks on the Republicans, can we put the train back on the tracks. And this will necessarily require that only the most serious needs of the Republic be addressed first.

Ask Newt.

203 posted on 03/27/2006 7:17:30 PM PST by pickrell (Old dog, new trick...sort of)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

Comment #204 Removed by Moderator

To: NormsRevenge

bookmark

Thank you Norm - great to have a comparison like this!


205 posted on 03/27/2006 7:19:33 PM PST by Seattle Conservative (God bless and protect our troops and their CIC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor

ROFL. You sound like Feingold. Good luck with that.


206 posted on 03/27/2006 7:19:38 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

We already got that amendment. It's the second one from the top.


207 posted on 03/27/2006 7:19:57 PM PST by Modok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
If you have an issue that the government won't address and 75% of the people are behind you, obviously you can run for President. You probably have to do so anyway, just to convert contributions to FR into "hard money" which can be spent on political speech notwithstanding McCain-Feingold. It's my interpretation that the original political parties were the two newspapers which Jefferson and Hamilton sponsored to wage their partisan battles against each other; why shouldn't FR be a political party?

208 posted on 03/27/2006 7:20:09 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Based on my limited experience with term limits, I don't think a Constitutional amendment route is feasible (in our lifetime at least).

The first thing to do is to get Immigration and Naturalization agency (or whatever they are called now) properly funded and staffed, so they have the capability to enforce existing laws. I think that there is no official desire to either staff them properly or to order them to enforce the existing laws. We are pitted against very powerful interests.

One of them is the Democrat party which views each illegal as a potential Democrat and future voter. The other powerful interest is the industries which depend on illegals for cheap (off the books??) labor.

I am not sure that there is one solution. I think that the condition has to be attacked on several different fronts and levels.

My solution is to secure the southern border. First in Arizona, which seems to bleed the most. Then progressively the other states. New Mexico is going to use their National Guard to some extent. I would put pressure on the Arizona Governor to call out the Guard and close the Arizona-Mexico guard. If the Governor will not act, send in regular service personnel to show that the US is serious.

The next step, which could occur concurrently, is to start deporting every illegal alien that is in Federal or local custody. Replace any Federal employee which will not perform his (or her) job. On the local level, use the Federal prosecutors to remove local personnel that do not enforce the laws of their state and nation.

The final step. would require rounding up and deporting the illegals that remain in the country. Enabling legislation should make it a crime to hire an illegal. This is a diffucult nut to crack because an illegal may have papers that he can show to his emplorer that the employer can't verify whether they are real of bogus. A much closer Federal-Local liaison will have to be implemented. Already this is a massive undertaking.

Unfortunately, the US an the present time, does not seem to have the intestinal fortitude to continue any painful, large projects and to bring them to a successful conclusion.

The United States truly needs our prayers. I have recently driven around some of the country. Many, many states have effectively been flooded with illegals. It will be a real task to root them out, if they don't want to go.
209 posted on 03/27/2006 7:20:31 PM PST by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT

"I'd be more happy to see individual states tackle immigration"

I live in GA and I think it's a start. But won't Congress be pre-empting states rights with the garbage that's going to get through now?


210 posted on 03/27/2006 7:22:15 PM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I'll summarize the conclusion of my sprawling post:

Mr. Robinson, forget about a Constitutional Convention. It won't get done, and it won't affect the process for years.

If you really believe the country is falling apart, use what you have built here to simultaneously launch an Immigration Reform Party, built on this base, in every state in America. It's sudden appearance would threaten the order, and either bring Republicans to their senses, or not, in which case you would be able to actually get politicians elected at all levels of government.

Turn FreeRepublic into the launchpad of the first successful third party movement in American history. You've built this up, now use it to try and wrest control of the country back in the most alarming and threatening way possible: start a party. You will have thousands all at once. You will have money, a platform, and a fifty state organization.


211 posted on 03/27/2006 7:22:31 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I believe the dangers of a Constitutional Convention are indeed that everything would be put on the table, including the 2nd amendment, etc.

The problem is the executive branch is not enforcing the laws passed by Congress. The leaves a few options.

1) Sue immigration officials responsible for enforcement for malfeasance, civil rights violations, treason.
2) Lobby State legislatures to pass laws which enforce illegal status a State felony.
3) Lobby State executives to declare emergency powers and precipitate a Constituional crisis.

212 posted on 03/27/2006 7:22:47 PM PST by Rightwing Conspiratr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Jim you are absolutely right. In all our anger, we cannot throw out the pubbies, for the dims are truly worse.

We can however make a lot of noise at the grassroots level. And organize many others to do the same.


213 posted on 03/27/2006 7:22:57 PM PST by umgud (12 gauge, the original pepper spray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Annex Mexico, slice California, San Fran off the map, especially that Marina homo dog owner arrogant self absorbed infestation that was in the National Geographic this month, and all will be well.


214 posted on 03/27/2006 7:23:25 PM PST by Screamname (Tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Ban wire transfers or sending cash or checks through the mail by individuals to Mexico completely and they will have to go back to bring the cash home. Step-up border security to prevent re-entry, and the problem solves itself.
215 posted on 03/27/2006 7:24:11 PM PST by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: pissant

----ROFL. You sound like Feingold.----

And you sound like a condemned man who's convinced himself that the door at the end of the hall leads to a candy store.

We'll see who ROFLs last.

-Dan

216 posted on 03/27/2006 7:25:01 PM PST by Flux Capacitor (Trust me. I know what I'm doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
"They sat back and accepted this untenable situation, instead of fighting back."

That just ain't the cowboy way. ;)

Hollyweird is done-for, but maybe we could pull a few popular country artists into the fight for some publicity to get people off their keisters. I know people who would literally jump off a bridge if somebody like Willy Nelson asked them to.

217 posted on 03/27/2006 7:26:05 PM PST by CowboyJay (Rough Riders! Tancredo '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Jim,

Have we lost everything at this point? The House bill is still there, and the two groups have to come to an agreement. Where can we apply pressure at this point, and will it do any good? I still believe we still have a fighting chance. Am I wrong?
218 posted on 03/27/2006 7:26:42 PM PST by GarySpFc (de oppresso liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor

I'd rather be on death row than sound like Feingold, to be quite frank.

Regardless, have a good night. Gotta run.


219 posted on 03/27/2006 7:27:13 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma

It's way past time; the illegals, the 'Rats and the RINO's have finally gone too far....


220 posted on 03/27/2006 7:28:48 PM PST by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 421-431 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson