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.
You may have a point, ST. You just may have a point. You're all right no matter what they say about you.
Good.
He's built this thing from nothing.
There are hundreds of thousands of like minded people here who are passionate about things.
Many are frustrated with the drift of the country.
He has the platform.
Everything with his name on it gets read.
He gets tens of thousands of dollars just by asking.
He could do this thing. He really could.
And the Republicans would be throwing out anchors and slamming on the brakes.
What Jim Robinson ought to do is what Martin Luther did: nail his "99 Theses" (fewer would be better) to the Door of FreeRepublic: what he (and so many other people here) want.
Not requests. Demands:
(1) Closed borders.
(2) Deportation of illegals.
...
The whole list.
One last clear shot for "Catholic" Republican "Rome" to see its errors and shape up.
And if it does, then FreeRepublic will have served a great purpose and actually saved the country, from its founder's perspective.
And if the GOP does NOT, then do as Luther did, push the button, establish an Immigration Reform Party, and hotly contest everything, with the left and the right, in every state and district.
If he calls, there will be a thousand voices that answer, and there will be others to support him.
He could do it.
Nobody else in America could do it, because nobody else built the magnificent thing, this FreeRepublic. It's a first, and it's big.
Many would bug out, but many others would join.
It would change everything.
"One change in law that would be constructive would be not to confer citizenship on children of illegal immigrants born within our borders."
Now that should be a constitutional amendment we push. Something like
'Any person born in the United States whose parents were not both legally American citizens is not an American citizen and has none of the rights American citizens have. Any person not an American citizen, though residing in America legally, generally has the same rights American citizens have under law, but regardless of those rights may be deported upon Executive decision, without recourse to law.'
It really doesn't matter what laws we pass, though, because as you mention the government ain't enforcing them where they matter most. Still, passing that amendment would be much more likely to effect a change in America's ability to keep illegals out and kick them out.
Yep; BEST president Mexico ever had.
Too bad he's more interested in the 'MEX' half of 'TEX-MEX'.
But that doesn't do anything for the problem at hand.
Stay away from a C.C.; I don't need to lose my 2nd Amendment rights, as well as my country.
They WILL pay attention to your votes and fundraising, ESPECIALLY IN THE PRIMARIES.
This is primary season. You do the math.
But as I said, pulling up in DC with a couple hundred or maybe as many of 1,000 protestors won't do CRAP for your pet issue and may actually hurt it.
There are other ways of getting their attention.
Your idea has merit, but if we act individually, it will be easy to be overlooked and dismissed as cranks.
If we want to effect change, we need to act in concert. I have read the responses here, and can't help but conclude that we are letting what separates us get in the way of what we might all agree to.
Surely, we can put aside our individual exasperation, and use this forum to construct a platform of minimal demands to begin with, and let that expand as the body of this forum decides.
I can tell you one thing- it won't happen by itself. We perhaps can't force a Constitutional Convention, but we can start laying the foundations for one right here on this forum.
Many of us have studied, read, and argued, in order to polish our skills for the day we know must come, if we are to continue as a Republic of free men. Will we now say, "Gee... well, it kind of sounds like it might take up some of my time..." When times demand, a people rise to their feet, or become comfortable on their knees, restful and compliant.
If we can present 10,000 Freepers who agree on the following X,Y and Z, at least then we are not all wasting our time.
I have never been involved in a political movement, but can we not at least agree... that the time has come to band together as we may, and do a little pushing back?
If we stand on our own individual little patches of turf, and defend our own narrowly tailored, rigid anger, we thereby represent absolutely no immovable object to those who by profession build enough consensus to force change... and also resist change.
The time is now, and we have the talent... and the convention center right here. If we start the construction of the new party with what we can all primarily agree on, no matter how small to start, we can at least see, finally, whether we have a chance at succeeding.
Huaraches. Jalapenos. Crooked politicians. No, wait, those are our own, they're just behaving like the ones south of the border.
It'd certainly be a good start. The states involved could begin to draft proposals on how they could deal with the impending crisis...
They didn't in 2000.
And they didn't (again) in 2004.
Why should I think they will pay attention this time?
NUTS!
Simply start a peaceful revolution on the internet and vote every single incumbent out of office.
Or better still... vote a recall on every Representative and Senator based upon deriliction of duty.
We'd see ourselves in a two front war of terror experiencing the horror we see in Israel at home and our soldiers fighting in the Middle East.
They'll pay attention if they get defeated in the primaries, especially if the candidate that's put up by noble citizens holds the same principles on the issue.
Get real here. All they care about is the $$$ flowing in and the votes that go their way. Well people have been whining and moaning about immigration since I've been here, threatening to cut off whatever $$$ they were sending, yet the GOP continues to set fundraising records year after year.
Only an insane person continues to do the same thing and expect a different result. Threatening to cut off funding won't do it.
Voting them out WILL. Push candidates that are similiar to what you believe in. If they lose, they lose. Maybe you can get your guy close enough to the incumbent to either shake him or her up to the issue OR win it outright.
Abandoning the process won't do anything, because that WILL get Democrats elected. I'm SO sure they would do anything about the border.
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.
A platform won't do it.
It takes a party. Political action committees pressure, but in the end their interests are balanced with others.
Politicians running for office THREATEN, and it is the unapologetic THREAT - not as in "would you please consider" - but as in "I am better than you, I am going to take you job, and I am going to do it myself" that is most alarming to politicians.
Notice the way that Kerry moved towards Bush, because he had to co-opt whatever he could in order to have a shot.
Standing up a new, unapologetic political party, coast to coast and in every state, and running, and expanding it: THAT will scare the bejeezus out of the Republicans, especially (the Democrats will be laughing; but the Democrats were not laughing when Ventura took their Governor's Mansion away from them).
Immigration is an issue with LEGS.
So is land confiscation and that Kelo case.
Those are two issues that cut right down the center and make most people angry. Neither party addresses those issues. A new party could.
Third parties have always been a joke, because they were personal vehicles. Reform was a THREAT (it cost Bush the White House) because Perot was a billionaire. But there's never been communication like today. The Internet is like the Revolutionary Era Chambers of Correspondence.
If Jim Robinson converts this into a vehicle to create a party, he might very well win the country.
Literally.
Someone told him "run for President".
Well, perhaps.
Run for President, but run Billy Joe for Congressman from the 109th, and run Pickrell for Senator from State Z, etc.
There are thousands of candidates, and this party could have the fastest start up time in history. There could be a shell of a platform and 10,000 adherents and candidates nationwide TONIGHT, if Mr. Robinson decided to do it.
(He shouldn't go that fast. He should put out the word on FR for SERIOUS LEGAL ADVICE. Every lawyer here should advise. Every political operative here should pitch in.
Because we know America now. Do this, and he will be in danger of ARREST. We will learn terrible things about him. That's the way the Bush's work. That's the way the Clintons' work. That's the way the Republican machine and Democrat machine works. Legal preparation can avoid the legal ramifications. And we have to remember that people are not perfect, and vote for ideas, not personal perfection which is unattainable in men anyway.)
Perhaps you stand a chance, if you either (a) are in complete control of your Party's senatorial nomination process, or (b) you live in a sparsely-populated State. But even then, look at South Dakota's perpetual reëlection of Tom Daschle.
It's not because people have bought into any "myth"—it is a direct result of the fact that you literally have better odds of winning the lottery (in a populous State) than you do in effecting the outcome of the Senatorial election.
The Senate was never intended to be popularly-elected. With a populace as utterly ignorant of the principles which make up our Government, I completely understand now, exactly why that is...
All depends on who "they" are.LOL
I still find it hard to fathom that the whole of Congress is still ignoring this issue, but this IS part of the bunch that ignored the terrorists for years.
I think it would be great to do both.
Thanks
Done. Both of them, too.
So now you're talking to yourself??
Did you see the Newsmax ping?
Did you get or know someone who gets National Geographic? If you do check out this month. You want to puke about California, you can`t get more nauseous than when you read about this San Fran Marina situation going on over there.
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.