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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

You are correct that, under Article V of the US Constitution, on the application (to Congress) of the Legislatures of 2/3rds of the States (which would be either 33 or 34 States, depending on how the Supreme Court interpreted it)[for comparison purposes, President Bush won the electoral votes from 28 states in 2004], Congress is obligated to call a Constitutional Convention.

Article V does not say whether or not such application by state legislatures has to be in the form of a regular law passed by a State's government under its Constitution. This is an important question, because it determines whether or not a State Legislature (as referred to in the Constitution) has to get past a hostile Governor in order to include its voice in the call to Congress for a Convention. Again, the Supreme Court would probably have to decide that question.

We can assume that the fear that would be unleashed by any serious move towards a Constitutional Convention would cause the Supreme Court and every other branch of government to interpret the clause as strictly as possible. Thus, we can assume that the Supremes will say that 34 states would be required, not 33. We can assume that the Supremes will say that such application from a State Legislature must be in the form of a duly enacted law, meaning that the Governor of each state will have the opportunity to veto, and that ballot initiatives by citizens will not avail.

Several posters on this site have sounded the alarm that a Constitutional Convention opens the door to amending everything and anything, all at once. It is suggested that this would essentially be the writing of a new Constitution of the USA. But that is not strictly true. First of all, no matter what the Convention decided, the equal representation of each State in the Senate cannot be changed without the consent of the State so affected. Only a revolution or unanimous consent of each and every state could change the equal Senate.

Secondly, and more importantly, under Article V the existing Congress still retains the fundamental power to decide whether or not the amendments proposed by a Constitutional Convention should be approved by Constitutional Conventions to be called in each state, with 2/3rds approval being required, or the standard 3/4ths of the State Legislatures approving each amendment.

So, if a bevy of amendments were proposed by a Convention, Congress could still insist that each be approved by 3/4ths of the States, which would risk each and every Amendment. Perhaps none would pass. The Convention might propose everything in an omnibus amendment (although, please note, if there were significant objection, the Supreme Court might be seized with the issue, might decide that it was not a political question, and might not permit the omnibus amendment process), which Congress, if it disapproved, could choose to try and kill by submitting it to either state conventions or 3/4ths of the Legislatures, as it saw fit.

In answer to the doomsayers, then, I would say that it is not quite right that "everything goes" if a Constitutional Convention is called. Congress still retains the power to determine the manner of ratification, and continues to sit under the present Constitution until the new one is passed. And the Supreme Court will still exercise judicial review, which it may well do quite aggressively in order to prevent the advance of a project which the Court perceives as being hostile to its interest.

So, it seems to me that a Constitutional Convention is unlikely to be able to effect radical change, or even get set up, unless there is strong disaffection with the government, and there are huge supermajorities willing change.

I don't personally think America is there yet. America, to me, seems quite divided, 1/3 Democratic Left, 1/3 Republical Right, and 1/3 Libertarian, non-partisan Centrist, and apathetic. On the other hand, this is not all that different from the division of the people at the start of the American Revolution; but by the middle of the war the numbers were more lopsided, 70% or more in support. By the last years of the war, a full 90% of Americans supported the Revolutionary cause, perhaps because they saw that it was going to win.

So, there is the possibility that were a Convention to begin to be called, that Left and Right and Libertarian and disaffected Centrist might all find something in it for them, and it might get more support than one might expect.

But what outcome?
With an evenly divided country, how could the Constitution be amended from what it is that anybody would accept?

On the other hand, perhaps the best value of a call for a Constitutional Convention that really started to pick of steam might be the fear and loathing that such a movement might unleash. The general view, which we saw right here on this thread, is that a Convention would open Pandora's Box. The fear of seeing a movement really grow and spread might be sufficient to cause Congress to behave more rationally. Or not.

Still, immigration is indeed one of those issues that may not be able to be addressed any other way. Each party is deathly afraid of offending the great growing plurality of the 21st Century. So the Republicans are paralyzed, and the Democrats eagerly await amnesty which will give them a new majority. What do the polls show the popularity of immigration controls are? This may be THE issue which partisanship makes unfixable, which needs a Constitutional Convention, or the threat thereof, to fix it.

But truly, I think there is an easier way. I think it would be far easier to set up a new, Immigration Control political party in the United States, get it on the ballot in the States, and start electing candidates, than to get the current two-party appartus to cooperate in setting up a Constitutional Convention.

That, then, is my real recommendation to you, Mr. Robinson.
You have an amazing network of people here. Thousands who agree on many things. A Constitutional Convention will be resisted by both parties, and cannot do anything unless and until it is practically ready to start. But a new political party, nationwide, based on an uncompromising set of values which many people share, could immediately begin winning elections, and even a handful of elected officials changes the game.

There is a precedent for this. Ross Perot was a flash-in-the-pan, but just through charisma and throwing money around, he was able to create a third party candidacy that took a fifth of the vote, threw the election to Bill Clinton in 1992, and created enough of a structure that a Reform Party governor was elected in Minnesota.

Perot lost interest in his plaything, and was the temperamental billionaire, but with FreeRepublic you have probably THE single strongest base of potential well-wishers and supporters of anybody in the country.

If you are passionate enough about this issue to want to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the Constitution, then you should be passionate enough about it to consider going about it the way that is far more likely to cause INSTANT panic, alarm, shock waves, and get better results. Organize a third party, an Immigration Reform Party. Run candidates in every district in America. There are plenty who will step forward right now, if you ask them too, right here.

There are lawyers here, too, who will help you steer shy of the pitfalls.

Take a decisive step in that direction, and just the fact that it is seriously organizing will scare the living bejeezus out of the Republicans, and they may very well make great, rapid strides towards pacifying you and the nativists as quickly as possible, to prevent electoral meltdown in 2006, this fall.

Don't bother with the Constitutional Convention. You have to do that because the Republicans and Democrats both won't protect the borders. Go for the jugular right NOW, and do the thing that will cause the greatest shock and awe RIGHT NOW. Use your FreeRepublic platform to start an Immigration Reform party. Fling out a platform. Watch the candidates materialize. Watch the lawyers and others come to you. Watch the finances grow.

You didn't start this site to do anything like that, but by God you've got a following now. Tens of thousands of people read everything you say and respect you. They send you money. If you have a focused message that is temperate and not crazy, and show a willingness to fold back into the GOP if they will yield on the issue, but to go all the way to the mat and establish a national party if they won't do the right thing, you will have more instant credibility with more people than Ross Perot ever did.

If you really want immigration reform in the USA, Mr. Robinson, you are the best placed person to do it, just by composing a post, putting out the call for candidates and funds, and starting a party to save America (as you see it) right here, right now.

After all, you didn't REALLY spend all of the time and effort just to make a pure chat room, did you? You really care about this country, and you see it going on the rocks.
You've been hoping and hoping that the GOP would do it.

It's dead, Jim.

It can't do it.
You might actually could.

That's my 2 cents.
Not a Convention, which is abstract and won't get anywhere before there's a Democratic President, amnesty, and the game is over.
An Immigration Reform Party. Stood up all at once in an election year.
You are the only one who actually could potentially do it without having a billion dollars to throw around.

You have the respect of thousands and thousands of FReepers in every state across America. You're passionate, and you have the mightiest blog on the Internet.

That is where to place your chips. Threaten the establishment with a party, and things will change. Or they won't, and you'll start actually having candidates elected and getting real political power to fix immigration. A Convention will never get done. A party could change everything within 6 months and address this dramatic issue. You've stored up power for years.
Use it.

That's all.

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.