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

[Jim Robinson]

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

1. The Legislative Method requires the legislatures of three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposed amendment.
2. 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.

1. Altering the arrangement known as slavery until 1808, a ban that has been lifted both by time and war.
2. Altering the arrangement of equal representation in the Senate.
3. 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.

1. 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.
2. Delegates would be apportioned to the states on the basis of population according to the Supreme Court’s “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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 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.

1. A delegate from New York will introduce an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
2. A delegate from Georgia will counter with an amendment to remove the Militia Clause from the same amendment.
3. A delegate from North Carolina will introduce an amendment to extend the 14th Amendment to the unborn.
4. A delegate from New Jersey will counter with an amendment to legalize abortion on demand.
5. Hawaii will introduce an amendment to abolish the death penalty.
6. Oregon will revive the Equal Rights Amendment.
7. Maryland will attempt to give the District of Columbia statehood.
8. Illinois will introduce an amendment creating an explicit right to privacy.
9. Virginia will attempt to ban flag burning.
10. Alabama will try to ban unfunded mandates.
11. Utah will attempt to restrict executive orders.
12. Florida will try to ban asset forfeiture.
13. South Carolina will attempt to codify a state’s right to secede.
14. 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 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.

253 posted on 03/27/2006 7:59:45 PM PST by Publius

[Publius]

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

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

No, it isn't.

And it's not the American way.

If people here want to resign themselves to Meso-America, and have the experiment of Mexifornia repeated across the country-as well as welcoming the erection of a grand mosque in every state capital in this country-then that's their prerogative.

However, to advise other conservative, patriotic Americans to follow that defeatist path is unconscionable, in my opinion.

[Pukin Dog]

I hope you enjoy close to a 10% stet income tax rate, 8%+ sale taxes, plus tons of fees on top of that.

Because I understand economics, my effective tax rate is 0%, and has been so for years. I've done nothing that anyone else cant do, so that dog wont hunt.

I'm not in the habit of letting the Government determine my fate.

[joesnuffy]

you cannot call a constitutional convention and limit it to one topic. everything would be on the table and there is no telling what we would end up with.

Probably end up with the same constitution Iraq got...

We must put these traitors under TERM LIMITS

imo

[ozarkgirl]

That just ain't the cowboy way. ;)

Hang in there Cowboy, I think America's gonna need you soon.

[Nuc1]

"Six steps SOLVE the illegal alien problem:

1. Jail and fine employers who knowingly hire illegals
2. Deny ALL government services, including welfare, food stamps, education, and medical to illegal aliens (with the exception of true, dire emergency care - - after which, immediate deportation).
3. Babies born to illegals are NOT automatically granted citizenship but are instead deported along with their mothers.
4. Second timers (illegals arrested twice) serve a month in real jail. Increased sentences for multiple arrests.
5. Anybody caught aiding and abetting the entry of illegals into the United States serves a mandatory minimum jail sentence of one year. Increased sentences for multiple arrests.
6. BIG border fences and ample armed patrols."

Likely to work, although you left out one thing, the country of origin pays the cost of the illegal. Like medical costs transportation out etc.

[Pelham]

lol. But it doesn't appear to make an impact on them.

[MikefromOhio]

Who said anything about settling for the status quo? I didn't.

I'm saying that any contrived March to DC won't do anything. As a matter of fact, unless you get several hundred thousand attendees (and you probably won't), chances are that it won't do anything.

[4integrity]

'...even the 'honest types' are being expertly organized by every socialist/communist group in America...'

I believe you are right on the money! How else could hundreds of thousands of people converge if not expertly organized by a backer with experience and money.

Mr. Morones on Bill O'Reilly's show implied the illegal immigrants are coming to America to make it a better country. How considerate of them. But, since they prefer to carry flags of their home country vs the American flag, I wonder, why don't they simply work to make their own countries better? I believe, Mr. Morones commented that America is causing terrorism. That speaks volumes. It would be very interesting to know who is financially supporting Mr.Morones, Border Angels.

Bill O'Reilly proposed good solutions to the illegal immigrant problem. Hope the Administration was listening.
I pray citizens who truly love our great country, America, will wake up before it's too late.

[Frank_2001]

They want California so badly, they can have it, and we take Mexico. Now there's a plan!:)

[Osage Orange]

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.

Seems we have been trying that since I started voting.........

Term limits are the answer...in my opinion.

FRegards,

[Lancey Howard]

Likely to work, although you left out one thing, the country of origin pays the cost of the illegal. Like medical costs transportation out etc.

Good point. And I think we could extract those payments pretty readily.

[CowboyJay]

"and then they had a Tea party."

What does Mexico ship us that we could throw back besides illegals? If we attempted to block their goods at a POE, we'd be doing time in Gitmo or Ft Leavenworth.

[LibertarianInExile]

Hell, NO.

First off, a Constitutional Convention would do what the first did. It'd go hog wild with amendments that have no basis under the call to arms. And odds are very good that the first one that would be arms-related. And that it'd pass the state legislators. And that we'd be short on a Constitutional RKBA real quick.

I'd instigate civil OBEDIENCE in places that are serving illegal aliens before I would ever push for a Constitutional Convention. First off, one might utilize the most dangerous and smelly day laborers' services, having them knock on neighborhood doors and solicit people to vote for political candidates...the ones who aren't doing $#!# about crimmigrants.

Also, it'd be simple to start networking so that parents can report the names and addresses of children who are illegal aliens in public schools to Homeland Security, and publicize the HS workers who do nothing to stop them from being there, as it would save a ton of money and embarrass do-nothing HS workers publicly and the people that stop the hardworking ones from doing their jobs. It would be equally simple to make companies that are known to be hiring illegals fire them, producing a file of known illegals employed there, and sending it both to HS, the company, and the newspapers. Same for illegals' crash pads. Find a dirt lawyer willing to sue for the lost property values and harass property owners of these slum houses.

Additionally, it would be fair to simply take advantage of the opportunities that illegal workers present. For example, there's a video bouncing around that shows a young guy picking up illegal day laborers as if he was going to hire them, then dropping them in front of the INS. I don't advocate that, but anywhere there is a known day-laborer pickup spot, organizing friends to create a traffic slowdown on that block could really hurt illegals' pocketbooks.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

The only commodities that come immediately to mind are oil and pot.

[texasbluebell]

It's already stated twice in the US Constitution that the states are to be protected from invasion.

I don't know how much more obvious it can be to our elected officials than that.

What good will it do to call for an amendment to the Constitution which most of them are already ignoring now -- the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article 1. Section 8. Clause 15.

[The Congress shall have Power]

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

and

Article 4. Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

[jocon307]

But isn't it in there already? All invaders foreign and domestic? It's not just like that, I realize.

I want to know when our marches are going to start. It's obviously time to mobilize against the immivaders.

[abigailsmybaby]

I like this idea. After reading this whole thread, a CC is a little scary to me. Just my 2 cents.

[georgiabelle]

I am very glad to see that you are finally realizing that this is the most critical issue that we have. Do you realize that we had a half a million aliens in our streets trying to overthrow our govt. And that is exactly what they are trying to do. If they win on this then the next time they want something it will not stop at protesting. It's going to get ugly.

I have never donated to Free Republic because I didn't think that you ever thought this was much of an issue. You didn't even have an immigration thread. We had to have a ping list.

I think that each state that has the Governor up for re-election should put someone in to run on nothing but immigration. Help raise money for them. Make sure they are just regular people. Not rich. Let them be able to tell the people that they know what it means to live from pay check to pay check. Then tell the people of that state just what the illegals are costing them. Break it down. You do know that out here in the real world that the Dems are just as worried about this issue as we are.

I do not think that we should go house to house to round up the illegals. But it they are caught then they should be treated like any other felons. You see, coming into the country is not a felony. But using false SS cards or document are. Working here, I think, without a green card is a felony. With a drug dealer they take everything he has. I think we should do that with the illegals. Cars, homes, money, cloths, furniture. All of that was brought with money that was obtained committing a felony. Then sit them at the closest border of the next state. Tell them not to come back. Fine the hell out of anyone who hires illegals. Make it mandatory to check their SS. Have a few pert walks for the CEO's. The federals could do nothing about it. State rights. I think that was brought up before. Over a hundred and forty years ago. It will scare them to death if our people win. They know they will be next.

I don't know if any of this would pass the Supreme Court. But in the meantime we start the process of taking back our country. I;m sure that I will get flamed for a lot of this but we really do have to start at the state. Ga. has started but not enough. We need to make the point.

[tgslTakoma]

They don't and won't pay a bit of attention to our phone calls, letters or emails.

They don't and won't pay a bit of attention to the Constitution.

They don't and won't pay attention to the laws that they and their predecessors have already passed.

They are whores who sell their votes to the highest bidder/donor.

They might pay attention to tar and feathers.

**Of course, there are a few who aren't greedy, self-serving egomaniacs and who actually care about the country; and Freepers know who they are. My above comments don't apply to those few honorable rep.