----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
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.
We just need an Amendment compelling the President and Congress to obey and enforce the laws we already have. /ng
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.
bookmark
Thank you Norm - great to have a comparison like this!
ROFL. You sound like Feingold. Good luck with that.
We already got that amendment. It's the second one from the top.
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?
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I'd rather be on death row than sound like Feingold, to be quite frank.
Regardless, have a good night. Gotta run.
It's way past time; the illegals, the 'Rats and the RINO's have finally gone too far....
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.