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:
The Founding Fathers left us two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jim, would it be a good idea to let the current crop of miscreants in Washington loose on the Constitution? I shudder.
While States definitely don't have the power to "deport" illegal immigrants, they DO have other powers they can use:
* 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
Any of these methods could be used without coming into conflict with Federal jurisdiction. We MUST use EVERY tool at our disposal to re-claim our sovereignty, or we do not deserve to HAVE it!
My state senators and assemblypersons are all pochos!
They are FOR the illegals!
Ay, ay, ay.
No Jim, it's time to throw the bums out.
We can demand all day long. I don't think that will get anywhere, mainly because the more demanding the phone calls and letters go to staff members and then to the circular file or memory hole.
We must PROVE it.
Since my last post I have read what a Constitutional Convention would mean. And no, I like our Constitution just the way it was written. I would however, like to go back to the true meaning of what our founding fathers had in mind, representation by the people we put in office. That's all I ask.
There are more Bushes than Clintons, though.
;^)
Congress is NOT representing the people and they all must be removed from office. Screw Kennedy and McLame.
!!PING!!
There are at most 49 other States which are closer to your worldview than the one you're stuck in, are there not? (And if you're stuck in California, my sincerest condolences! There is no hope of that State ever becoming conservative again.)
I do like the state-by-state technique, but I think it should be coupled with a consistent policy of voting against any and every officeholder who devalues American citizenship, starting with our contemptible, feckless U.S. Senate.
We can't do that. All WE can do is throw the REPUBLICAN bums out. And after we do that, the DEMOCRAT bums will be so deeply entrenched, we'll never get them out. Can you say wandering in a liberal/socialist wilderness for the next forty years?
Frankly, I think the federal government's failure to defend our borders is not the chief problem (though indeed, it is a problem, especially re terrorism and organized crime). But that act of omission is dwarfed by the acts of COmmission through which the federal government has turned this country into a giant magnet for illegal immigration. The federal government confiscates huge amounts of money from the taxpayers, and then ties the return of a large portion of it to compliance with laws requiring, among other things, that hospitals treat illegal immigrants, and that schools educate the children of illegal immigrants -- just those two items alone impose massive expense on U.S. citizens.
But the most damaging act of commission by the federal government (and damaging in a lot more ways than just the illegal immigration problem) is the mandating of countless expensive worker benefits -- minimum wages, overtime wages, employer contribution to social security, employer burden-of-proof in firing workers (leading to staggering litigation costs for firing useless or trouble-making workers), employer liability for injuries and illness even if caused by the employee's carelessness or substance-impairment or sheer refusal to observe established safety procedures. And hitting from the other side, the federal government continues to rob the working taxpayers in order to fund generous welfare programs covering housing, food, medical care, spending money, and sham "job training" programs, thus removing the incentive for low-level potential workers to work.
An additional problem is the many states and cities which have laws and policies even worse than the federal government's. It's not the federal government's fault that New York City police and emergency services workers and health care workers are prohibited from even asking people about their "immigration status". And then there are the states which mandate that illegal immigrants pay only the discounted in-state tuition at the state colleges. And many states also add to the federal government's pile of burdens imposed on employers by adding yet more from the state level.
All else being equal, the vast majority of employers would prefer to hire citizens and legal non-citizens. But all else is so very, very far from equal, that frankly, any employer in its right mind would prefer to hire illegals. They're the only workers who you can pay what you think they're worth and fire them if you don't need them anymore, or if they're lazy, or if they're perpetually strung out on drugs or alcohol, or if they give you and your other employees the creeps.
To summarize that laundry list, what's needed is to end socialism, because that's the magnet. Eliminate all that garbage, and the flow of illegals would immediately shrink to very manageable proportions.
The one Constitutional amendment directly related to immigration that we do urgently need, is to eliminate the citizenship claim of "anchor babies". Otherwise, any campaigns for Constitutional amendments should focus on eliminating socialism -- a step which would reap huge benefits in many areas, including the illegal immigration problem.
The problem is, we do not de facto have a representative government at this time. The Senators and Representatives have violated their oaths of office.
Would calling a constitutional convention be the same in essence as the national referendum you refer to?
We the people need to be able somehow to address this directly rather than going through our worthless "representatives."
"If we send a message that essentially if you don't look like us, talk like us and speak like us we don't want you, it has tremendous economic repercussions," Huckabee said.
On Illegal Children he says "They do get free public education for their children, but that's required under the Arkansas Constitution, Huckabee said. "And frankly I think we would want to make sure that their kids were getting an education because an educated society is a society that can work and do a job and do a better job and make money," Huckabee said.
As for allowing immigrants to receive free prenatal care, Huckabee said that's part of his pro-life sentiment as well as that of Amendment 65 of the state constitution, which says that Arkansas considers life to begin at conception.
"I believe that because it's a human life, then by our law and by our constitution even that unborn child is an Arkansas citizen because he or she is going to be born in this state,"Huckabee said. "The prenatal care for the entire pregnancy costs less than one-third of what one day in the neonatal unit at Children's Hospital would cost if the child has complications at birth."
He encouraged them to settle here..
sw
The U.S. Senate, as a body, is hopelessly corrupt.
Think about it: Throughout your entire state, you vote for two—TWO—people to represent you.
That's one person per (your state's population divided by 2).
Your ONLY hope is to ensure that you have control of your State government, and that we continue to increase our control locally. By doing so, we gain control over the only Government which can truly claim to even come close to representing us, no?
The Federal government is lost. It hasn't been listening to the public in at least a decade—over 90 years, by my estimate.
They can take all of them, along with the Kennedys, Udalls, Rockefellers, Dodds, and the fetid remains of what was once the remarkable Taft dynasty and send them on a first-class plane flight to one of these tropical tax-shelters like the Cayman Islands.
In calling for the Convention, each state could in theory give its' delegates a mandate to address only one issue.
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.