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

[processing please hold]

I think more agree than disagree with me. Just look at the poll right here on FR.

Do you support or oppose H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005?

Support
89.7%

Oppose
10.3%

H.R. 4437.....http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4437:"

[Petronski]

Sheesh, you're incorrigible!


I like it. LOL

[LK44-40]

although I've only done Electrical work. I guess I could help design the circuit for the lights.

Could you work on the high-voltage, point-of-contact, distributed-enforcement system?

[durasell]

My mistake. I already had the marketing all worked out, too.

VONAGE PRESENTS
The Constitution of the United States Of America

CUSA Part II

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

You make a good point, re: the corrosive effect that fraudulent voting patterns have on our political system.

However, for better or worse, a lot of conservative voters continued to vote for Daschle in spite of his doctrinaire liberalism, year after year.

The massive corruption involved in cultivating votes on Indian reservations in that state wouldn't have been pivotal if a substantial majority of SD voters hadn't-for whatever reason-considered Daschle to be a plausible U.S. Senator, in the same way that they thought it acceptable to elect that moonbat Abourezek-Daschle's mentor-for so many years before finally ousting him.

The argument about populism does cut both ways.

While Hillary Clinton is the epitome of the Dem. machine candidate, it could be argued that she would have never been elected to the U.S. Senate if it had been left up to the state legislature here, although the subordination of the Democratic Party in this state to the political aspirations of the Clinton machine began way before the 2000 election.

Judith*cough*Hope!

By the same token, you can use the same argument for popular elections, which is one of the reasons that Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions are also in the United States Senate, in spite of the opposition they've faced throughout their political careers by members of their own party.

[durasell]

That's interesting, right?

[Congressman Billybob]

Look at the whole history of state legislatures' Convention calls. Three of them, in the 18th century only, asked for a new general Convention. Since then, every single call by every single state has been limited, not general. History answers you question, emphatically.

John / Billybob

[CowboyJay]

"Er..you know that Willie Nelson supports homosexuals, right? Had very good things to say about "Bareback" Mtn. Nuff said."

Was just a FRinstance...

Willie's getting up there in years and smokes alot of dope.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Probably.

They'll use any excuse to forsake the people who pay their salaries though.

The only thing they understand is the blunt exercise of power through the ballot box.

Spencer Abraham lost not because of the power of organized labor, or the prowess of the MI Democratic Party-in spite of the boasts they might make to that effect-but because he was an open borders Republican.

Unfortunately, the people who unseated him didn't seem to realize that the person who would be replacing him in that seat was just as atrocious on the issue of immigration, but much worse in every other respect.

[processing please hold]

Great link, thanks.

Here ya go...

Q. How is impeachment different from the criminal and civil processes?
. The criminal process involves personal misconduct and imposes penalties to vindicate the interests of society. The civil process involves personal fault and imposes liability to compensate individual victims.

The impeachment process is different from either of these. While it has elements of the criminal process, it is also a "political" process in that it is designed to deal with misconduct by high public officers. In the words of professor Jeff Atkinson of DePaul Law School, impeachment is designed "to protect our country and our Constitution from leadership that has become a danger to the country. Phrases used by the framers of the Constitution include 'corruption,' 'abuse of power,' 'subversion of the Constitution,' and 'neglect of duty.'"

That describes what's going on now to a tee.

[processing please hold]

I believe someone posted that O'Reilly, said 75% of Americans agreed with me.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

That's the understatement of the year.

;0)

[durasell]

For the record, and from my limited readings, I don't think it's a problem that can be "solved," at least not in the way that most people think of problems being solved. It's one of those complex problems that has to be "managed." Right now it appears that it's being managed poorly. The trick is to manage it better.

[processing please hold]

Unfortunately, the people who unseated him didn't seem to realize that the person who would be replacing him in that seat was just as atrocious on the issue of immigration, but much worse in every other respect.

That's the problem. They campaign one way to get elected, and if they are, they turn into Mr.Hyde. You can't trust the bastards anymore. They just tell you what you want to hear to get elected. On election night, you go to bed with a 10 and wake up with a 1.

[texasbluebell]

What a great post. The salvation of this country may just yet come from the minds on FR. I don't see anything else coming down the pike.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

And not the good Mr. Hyde, either.

This guy:

Consider the wary blond a stand-in for the American electorate.

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks to both for your very informative posts.

[processing please hold]

Like one FReeper said, gather up 50,000 illegals a day and send them back where they came from.

Manage it? Throw their butts out and build an impregnable fence. Back up that fence with cameras, sensors, Border Patrols or soldiers. That's how I'd manage it. The cost be damned. We're going broke now.

[LK44-40]

If the Dems win big in Novemeber, we all know that we will see a push for impeachment.

If I were a sitting conservative congressman, I would be very conflicted when voting on impeachment.

The Dem charges would, of course, be political and bogus. But, in spite of that, if I had a chance to vote impeachment against a president who has so manifestly and contemptuosly declined his lawful duty to protect these United States in their borders, I would be extremely tempted to drop the impeachment hammer on his butt.

[processing please hold]

That's the Hyde I was thinking of. :-)