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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The Legislative Method requires the legislatures of three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposed amendment.
- 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.
- Altering the arrangement known as slavery until 1808, a ban that has been lifted both by time and war.
- Altering the arrangement of equal representation in the Senate.
- 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.
- 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.
- Delegates would be apportioned to the states on the basis of population according to the Supreme Courts 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 cant 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.
- A delegate from New York will introduce an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
- A delegate from Georgia will counter with an amendment to remove the Militia Clause from the same amendment.
- A delegate from North Carolina will introduce an amendment to extend the 14th Amendment to the unborn.
- A delegate from New Jersey will counter with an amendment to legalize abortion on demand.
- Hawaii will introduce an amendment to abolish the death penalty.
- Oregon will revive the Equal Rights Amendment.
- Maryland will attempt to give the District of Columbia statehood.
- Illinois will introduce an amendment creating an explicit right to privacy.
- Virginia will attempt to ban flag burning.
- Alabama will try to ban unfunded mandates.
- Utah will attempt to restrict executive orders.
- Florida will try to ban asset forfeiture.
- South Carolina will attempt to codify a states right to secede.
- 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 its 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 governments.
Perhaps its time for the American people to show that government whos 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 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 421-431 next last
To: Jim Robinson
Jim, is there any new law or regulation required here? We have laws that state you can't walk across our borders, that if found, you're supposed to be returned to your country. We have laws forbidding people from evading taxes, we have laws that require employers to employ only people who have a valid tax identification number or social security card.
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.
2
posted on
03/27/2006 5:48:53 PM PST
by
kingu
(Liberalism: The art of sticking your fingers in your ears and going NANANANA..)
To: Jim Robinson
re: how should such an amendment be worded)))
That is indeed a significant challenge. How to amend the Constitution to command our government to defend that same Constitution?
3
posted on
03/27/2006 5:48:58 PM PST
by
Mamzelle
To: Jim Robinson
Referendums on a state by state basis calling for a convention? My senators Levin and Stabenow certainly aren't going to call for it.
4
posted on
03/27/2006 5:49:08 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
To: Jim Robinson
Isn't that one of the constitutionally sworn duties of our representatives?
Can the states withold tax monies to the Fed. govt. if it is not providing for the defense and protection of the borders?
5
posted on
03/27/2006 5:49:31 PM PST
by
antceecee
(...some people would complain if you hung 'em with a new rope...)
To: Jim Robinson
It's going to get ugly, Jim, very very ugly. And that's too bad. Cuz they're putting another country in front of their own.
My family and my home are now horribly threatened.
To: Jim Robinson
You won't get it passed in your lifetime even if you could all agree on the wording.
A better avenue is to bombard the congress to get some meaningful legislation passed. Find a current bill you can live with and push it with all the power of the "blog spear"
7
posted on
03/27/2006 5:50:29 PM PST
by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
To: Jim Robinson
Thank you, Jim.
I hope we get some good ideas on this..
sw
8
posted on
03/27/2006 5:50:53 PM PST
by
spectre
(Spectre's wife)
To: Jim Robinson
If ever there was a time for this maneuver, it is NOW!
10
posted on
03/27/2006 5:51:30 PM PST
by
freeangel
( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
To: All
Wouldn't any kind of amnesty be in fact unconstitutional? Can it be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court?
11
posted on
03/27/2006 5:51:41 PM PST
by
antceecee
(...some people would complain if you hung 'em with a new rope...)
To: Diva Betsy Ross; 4CJ; A CA Guy; abigail2; AgThorn; Alia; alisasny; an amused spectator; ...
12
posted on
03/27/2006 5:51:59 PM PST
by
Herford Turley
(Conservatism will save America)
To: Jim Robinson
The laws are already on the books that require enforcement and deportation. But we have failed to hold the politicians responsible. Pat Buchanan ran on that platform in 1996 and got nary a blip.
How about a citizens fund drive to raise money for the new fence.
13
posted on
03/27/2006 5:52:05 PM PST
by
pissant
To: Jim Robinson
It never ceases to amaze me that we need constantly remind our representatives in Congress that they serve at our pleasure, not theirs.
14
posted on
03/27/2006 5:53:08 PM PST
by
cgk
(I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
To: Jim Robinson
15
posted on
03/27/2006 5:53:09 PM PST
by
DocRock
To: Jim Robinson
Jim, what I think is going to have to happen is that state legislatures across the country are going to have to act (ala Georgia over the past few days) and create laws on their own that place limits on illegals and what they can do.
The only complaint I have with the conference legislation that the state of Georgia is about to enact is that they yanked out the provision that said that on all wire transfers where the person wiring couldn't produce positive legal domestic ID, that there would be a 4% surcharge placed on the transaction.
The wimps in the state House backed down on that one, even though it would have made the illegals pay. Either way though, the folks here are starting to get tough on the illegals -- despite all of the carping, whining and wailing that we've been seeing lately.
16
posted on
03/27/2006 5:53:24 PM PST
by
mhking
(Snakes -- On A Plane!)
To: Jim Robinson
Interesting. Thanks Bill O'Reilly. Thanks Jim Robinson. Interesting.
17
posted on
03/27/2006 5:53:30 PM PST
by
PGalt
To: Jim Robinson
What purpose will it serve to amend the Constitution with a provision that the government won't enforce? We have laws in place that are essentially being ignored, or least not being enforced. Start enforcing existing laws and deporting illegal aliens.
One change in law that would be constructive would be not to confer citizenship on children of illegal immigrants born within our borders.
18
posted on
03/27/2006 5:53:32 PM PST
by
ConorMacNessa
(HM/2 USN - 3rd Bn. Fifth Marines RVN 1969)
To: Jim Robinson
I don't think you'd accomplish anything by calling a "constitutional convention," and if anything were to come as a result of any convention, I think it'd end up doing more harm than good. Recall that there are no limits as to the amendments which can be made by this type of convention, so unless you control the
entire process, we're just as likely to end up with Constitutionally-mandated nationalized healthcare. Ick!
I'd be more happy to see individual states begin to tackle illegal immigration, such as Georgia has. FOR STARTERS, HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS: START TAXING INTERNATIONAL MONEY TRANSFERS.
Once the source of "free" money dries up, they'll all go home on their own. (I hope.)
19
posted on
03/27/2006 5:53:35 PM PST
by
detsaoT
(Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
To: Jim Robinson
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?
Yes.
If that doesn't work I do believe the esteemed Mr. Jefferson said something once about how to handle the government when they step out of line and refuse to listen to the people.
20
posted on
03/27/2006 5:53:53 PM PST
by
trubluolyguy
(Fences don't work? Better take down the one around the White house.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson