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

[WhiteGuy]

You want a socialist like fat teddy to get his grubby hands on the Constitution? Or the hildabeast? Good God have mercy!!!!


Of course not. Why would you suggest such a thing?

I would certainly not want the likes of many of our gop leadership to get their grubby hands on it either.

A constitutional convention could be convened with representatives not already elected officials.

[processing please hold]

If we can harness that fear for our advantage-in order to enact real change-then I guarantee you that this atmosphere of alienation and apathy will start to change.

You think they'd notice if 10 million pissed off Americans showed up in Washington bearing down on the senate building? I bet that would get their attention.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Or sent them blast-faxes, or melted the switchboards on Capitol Hill, or berated them at every public meeting they held henceforth.

Yes, that would be a good start.

We need to vocalize our distaste for these squirming, slimey creatures at every opportunity.

It won't have an impact on some of them-for example, Teddy "The Swimmer" Kennedy-but it will sway others.

But most importantly, we need to punish each and every one of these senators who have betrayed us at the ballot box.

[Jim Robinson]

Thank you very much. And I pasted a copy of your post to the top of the thread.

[processing please hold]

Of course not. Why would you suggest such a thing?

Because if they get the chance to open up that sacred document and have at it, it won't be recognizable when they get finished with it.

I don't anyone having a snowballs chance in hell with getting to it.

[durasell]

Just as long as they stay away from the 21st amendment!

[processing please hold]

We need to vocalize our distaste for these squirming, slimey creatures at every opportunity.

The left can get 500,000 in one city to protest against this government tightening the screws on immigration, and we can't manage to scrape together 5,000 when we want our voices heard. It's pathetic.

[AmeriBrit]

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

---

You win the prize for the most stupid plan suggested here today.

[RFT1]

Oh yes gov can and will determine your fate, So you found some tax loopholes, great, that wont be the case forever, especially as national demographics change and liberals gain control full like they have in CA. The people I know that didnt find tax loopholes, betwene the cost of living, the taxes and the "diversity" had enough and left CA.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

The numbers aren't the problem.

These fifth columnist, Mechista scumbags rallied the same level of support against Prop. 187, and the corollary to that bill in the state of Arizona, and it was all for naught.

What we need to do is ensure that we have elected officials-and jurists-willing to enforce the laws that are on the books.

We refuse to nominate another George W. Bush-type Republican, point-blank, under any circumstances.

If the GOP wants to win another election with an open borders, bilingual presidential candidate, then it can do so without our votes.

[detsaoT]

Look, I don't want to get into another pointless argument over the merits of the 17th Amendment. Suffice it to say, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on that subject. However, your reference to Daschle relates to my broader point. Namely, that the people's will is more powerful than any other force in American politics. South Dakotans kept reelecting Tom Daschle precisely because they believed that he represented their interests in Washington D.C., in spite of philosophical differences.

Please forgive me, I didn't recall debating the merits and demerits of the 17th Amendmend with you in the past. I didn't intend to start another argument over the subject, and was certainly not trying to win you over. I was merely trying to use the inherent corruption in South Dakota to illustrate my point—which might have been lost in the noise over the 17th Amendment. Please, if you will, allow me to try and illustrate it once more:

I would argue that Tom Daschle was continuously reëlected to the Senate not by the will of South Dakotans, but rather by firmly-entrenched ELECTORAL FRAUD which was pervasive on the Indian reservations within that State.

It was, by my logic, not necessarily "the people's will" that Daschle was recalled, but was instead the fact that, due to the reduction in illegitimate voting brought about by the electoral reform push that followed the Gore debacle that allowed the people of South Dakota to be heard for the first time ever!

Your fair state is another example of the problem that I'm trying to illustrate.

Do you think that Hillary would have a chance at all to gain a Senate seat, if it weren't for the entrenched Democratic voting apparatus in New York City? If it weren't for New York City, do you dare to bet for a second that she wouldn't have run off to a Chicago or Los Angeles to run, no matter who was currently seated there? It wasn't the citizens of New York State who elected her, but rather the entrenched Democratic stronghold that is the City!

Maybe we're both only seeing half of the picture... I approach the vote of the general population very hesitantly—first and foremost because the Democratic party has been so adept at blatantly manipulating the popular vote for so many years, and secondly because I feel that the population, corporately, is not fully aware of the way our Government is intended to work.

I'm also not saying you're completely wrong, either, but am merely trying to express the problem in the terms that I see it. (After all, we're the product of our learning, are we not?) You are most certainly right, in some cases, to say that the people retain Senators that they think are "useful" to them, though I shudder to think of the kind of person who would willingly vote for a McCain or a Feingold.

All of that aside, the corruption side of voting took a severe beating after the 2000 elections, and I think that we'll continue to see these people fall from power as elections become more honest. At least, that's all I can hope for.

[judicial meanz]

Here's how one group is answering this. I just noticed this on another board, and figured I would post it here. I dont know a thing about the group organizing it.

__________________________________________________________

A Day Without Americans - April 17, 2006 - National Day of Protest

From D.A. King: "We have reached the point in our national history at which we as a nation must choose whether to resist …or to wave the white flag of surrender…"

by D.A. King - The Dustin Inman Society

In response to the recent mass national rallies fearlessly staged by the illegal alien lobby, The Dustin Inman Society is suggesting that Americans nationwide stay home from work and not spend any money on April 17. 2006 - income tax day.

The country and its governmnet needs to witness a day without Americans.

It is not an overstatement to observe that the federal government has abandoned the American people and we teeter on the brink of national suicide.

The well-funded illegal alien lobby has been successful in galvanizing the millions of illegal aliens in the nation to march in American streets demanding no less than open borders, continued selective law enforcement and amnesty for people who should be in fear of apprehension and deportation.

It has also galvanized many Americans who are seeing for the first time the true nature and result of our intentionally unsecured borders.

Enough!

The message to the U. S. government and the world is that another amnesty for illegals is tantamount to erasing any pretense of a nation of secure borders, rule of law and a common language. Amnesty - by any name - does not stop illegal immigration.

We have reached the point in our national history at which we as a nation must choose whether to resist …or to wave the white flag of surrender.

We are suggesting that Americans who do not work in medical, law enforcement or emergency capacities stay home from work on April 17 and that we, as a united people, reply to the government that has refused to protect us by refraining from spending any money. Those who have nothing to fear from violating any law that is not beneficial to them are not the only group with power in these United States.

We are demanding that the American government offer the same protection in the United States that the Mexican government provides its people.

This is our country. We dishonor our grandfathers if we do not try to protect the republic that was lovingly passed on to us.

A national day of public opposition to illegal immigration April 17, 2006 !

[detsaoT]

We have jobs. They don't. It's perfectly understandable—though we'll be certain to make our influence known in more useful ways than foolish public parading... (not to say that I wouldn't feel DARN good burning a Mexican flag right now...)

[processing please hold]

Fat teddy would kill anyone who tried to mess with that again. Of course, the kennedy family made their money when the 18th was in effect.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...how would we go about getting two thirds of the state legislatures to act?

Pitchforks, shovels, knives, torches and rope.

[rolling_stone]

Thanks much for a fantastic post...the time has come to do something serious, and I will be giving a lot of my time to ponder the situation. The future of our children and this country is at stake and when 75% of the people want something done and our leaders refuse to do it. It is time for action. The question remains what type of action?

Off the top of my head besides a constitutional Convention, we need to use all our resources to fight these arrogant self dealing idiots. Taking a look at past causes, civil rights, prohibition, suffrage etc, what methods worked? Civil disobedience (peaceful)seems to be one common thread that helped bring about these changes.

Our politicians live for votes and donations. Both parties are now seperated by only a fine line.
Our government lives on our forced taxes and our antiquated tax law where is our amnesty? Where is our Tax Reform? It won't happen because Congress benefits from the status quo unless we make it happen.

Clearly if things don't change and soon, we will be facing a Civil War or Revolution, because America as we know it is disappearing.

I would thing a tactician would suggest a multi-pronged approach, and not put all our eggs in one basket.

Time to watch Mel Gibson in the Patriot again....Somehow I can relate to his role.

[processing please hold]

The numbers aren't the problem.

Maybe, maybe not. I think overwhelming numbers would scare the bejesus outta them and make them rethink their blatant support for the invasion of our country.

[durasell]

I'm new to the immigration issue...but let me throw my two cents out just the same.

Strict enforcement of immigration laws, as far as I can see, would require two things that people don't particularly like:

A)Increased taxes to enforce the laws on every level -- local, state and fed.

B)A new level of government intrusion into all businesses, particularly small businesses to check for undocumented workers. This could extend to home searches if there were "probable cause" of undocumented workers working as domestics.

[processing please hold]

though we'll be certain to make our influence known in more useful ways than foolish public parading...

Meanwhile....their foolish parading is getting them the results they want.

[Publius]

Taking a look at past causes, civil rights, prohibition, suffrage etc, what methods worked? Civil disobedience (peaceful)seems to be one common thread that helped bring about these changes.

With civil rights, civil disobedience was a large part of what moved Congress to action.

With Prohibition, the Constitution was amended by a populace tired of gang warfare to control the illegal product. An amendment had outlawed booze, and an amendment was needed to undo the damage.

With women's suffrage, there was a lot of civil disobedience in Britain, but little here. The Republicans led the way in several party platforms, and finally a constitutional amendment got past Congress and the states.