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.
Unseating senators who've betrayed our interests, on the other hand, is eminently doable, especially if we target ones who represent so-called swing states, e.g. Martinez, Stabenow, DeWine, among others.
Whoa!! That's just great; I didn't know that.
Mr. Jefferson provided you with elections every two years, and you can bet your last dime that the Congress does nothing BUT "listen to the people".
The problem is, there is no cost to a Member to support illegal immigration, and until the people see fit to impose such a cost, nothing will change.
Oh, I'm sure you're right. However, I think you ought to turn down the volume of your earpiece. Pat Buchanan's rantings have scrambled your brains.
I could stand on a soapbox and say these things, but nobody listens to me; I can't figure out why one of these guys with their huge "base" won't urge their listeners to do more than call and email their reps.
I think it might also work out differently than expected. Maybe we'll be looking at multiple parties--a La Raza party, a Conservative, a Socialist--and the GOP and DNC may see itself forgotton among the pluralities. What is curious to me is that black Democrats have not realized how marginalized they are shortly to become.
Key points I'd like to see in the amendment, wordsmithed in the appropriate manner by those who are good at it:
* Legislative and Executive are accountable for representing the interests of the American peoples' sovereignty. In case of a conflict between sovereignty and multilaterialism, or between sovereignty and economic considerations, sovereignty must prevail.
* President is required to treat an illegal immigration crisis as an invasion and act of war, and is required to uphold and defend the Constitution and the sovereignty of the US, etc.
* In any case where state and local authorities fail to uphold the law, harbor illegal aliens, or obstruct federal enforcement efforts, fed can declare a state of emergency, and deploy National Guard to enforce the law - e.g treat it like the LA riots.
* Conversely, where state and local authorities (and volunteers operating legally) demonstrate motivation to aid enforcement efforts, Fed shall not interfere.
* Reinstates the authority and duty of each state's governor to muster a State Militia, as a separate entity from the National Guard.
* Requires the Exec and Legislature to respond to any action by other nations to promote illegal immigration as an act of war.
What you get when, out of two parties, one is radical and the other is weak.
Well, Gov. Rick "Pretty Boy" Perry (R-TX)will be the last governor to do anything to protect his state. The criminal invaders are literally attacking the citizens of this state, and a load of munitions, including RPGs was just intercepted coming into TX from Mexico last week. Perry's in way over his head on this one. and besides, he's too busy with photo ops for the upcoming campaign. I wouldn't vote for that worthless show horse if he sent me a $50 bill for my vote.
A $10,000 per illegal employee would go a long way toward cleaning this up, not to mention that a 10% finders fee would ensure a LOT of people would be reporting their employers who were breaking rhe law.
The States have more power over their citizens (and the land within their borders) than the Federal Government does. They just don't realize it.
As far as correcting an out-of-control Federal government, well... the last time that was tried was 1861, I'm afraid. ;)
IMO, the opportunities for mischief...for undoing the most inspired of human documents...is too big to risk.
We need to use other means to restore and defend the Constitution.
Geez, same here with Janet Napolitano (D-AZ).
"My state senators and assemblypersons are all pochos!"
California has R&I legislature. You could start a petition and call for a referendum. Even if it doesn't pass in CA and NE, there's still a chance. We don't need every state. Only 3/4 to call for a convention.
Duh!
Get the hell out of there—the Northeast has been lost for more than a century! There's no reason to even think of being a slave of the welfare state, is there?
Not sure how to word it, but as long as we're going to amend it, let's put in a clause making it a felony and prosecutable with mandatory prison time and a fine or worse for any official, regardless of position who is found in violation of their oath of office. The founders forgot to put in an accountability clause, it seems.
California needs a constitutional convention all its own. Start by getting its constitution down to 200 pages. ;)
Actually, the first place to start would be the impeachment of the President for not fulfilling his oath of office by failing to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. When illegal aliens have a right to break the law because "they are hard workers", the Constitution has been tossed in the garbage. If this issue had come to a boiling point like this in '04, W would've been home in Crawford for the past year.
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.