Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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.
;^)
A little extreme for my taste -- road blocks, house searches, business inspections, a fenced border bristling with weapons, large detention centers, etc. etc.
He's making his own bed on the impeachment issue by leaving us wide open. He should start realizing he won't be president forever and the dims are sharpening their knives and waiting for 2009.
And you're so good at it. It's one of your many charms. ;-)
You guys can continue the fight. I don't know if I have the will to care anymore. One of two things will happen: the committee bill gets passed, or nothing gets passed.
Losing sucks.
I think it's time I simply move out of this state away from fascist Mexicans.
The challenge is to force the parties now contending for office to take the issue seriously and not to simply attempt to align themselves in a "I'm for, you're against" stance that allows both sides to avoid the problem entirely. That describes the status quo.
I have had long conversations with Publius concerning an Article V convention, some of them even relatively sober - well, he was, at least. While in a legalistic sense the matter may be restricted to the issue at hand I fear that enough other issues will be injected by those for whom the process is better sabotaged that the entire thing will end up decided in the Supreme Court - not the issue at hand but the process. The Constitution is clear in the matter, we think, but anyone who has seen recent politics knows that deliberate misinterpretation is a powerful ploy. Look, for example, at how successful the obfuscators have been in injecting doubt into the Second Amendment's relative clarity. Look at how the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are openly and outrageously violated by legislation by persons who are willing to say that black is white as long as they can avoid a judgment in the matter. It is, as Publius says, a dynamic and well-thought-out process (brilliantly so, IMHO) but those of bad conscience will do their utmost to subvert it to their own ends.
And yet we cannot accept the current direction of things and hope to maintain a stable society. Nothing is breaking down as yet but breakdown is inevitable if the system is overtaxed by too many demanders and not enough providers. We've tried a welfare society and it does not work. We've tried absorbing an underclass and elevating it by economics in which all boats rise by the tide, and we find that the underclass so created only wishes others to hold it up. But to say so is considered impolite because it is so easily mischaracterized as racist and unjust.
The challenge is considerable. The worshippers of Diversity insist that respect for the law is only fear of the Other. The press will do anything to spite the rubes. Enlightened opinion is markedly unenlightened. We have one line of communication that is unfiltered by political corruption, and this is it.
Some 73 years ago we voted in a democratic socialist regime that created a system of entitlements. In other words, we voted ourselves government checks. We compounded it by expanding entitlements in the Sixties. The party we voted in made a living of creating new and expanded entitlements and created a whole ethos of entitlement.
But somebody has to pay. The culture of entitlement requires a constantly expanding population to keep up with the transfer payments. As the nation transitioned from an agricultural to an industrial base, and when it transitioned from an industrial to an informational base, the birthrate naturally went down both times. So we opened the Mexican border wide. This permitted the system of transfer payments to be actuarially sound. The Europeans faced the same problem. Not having Mexico on their borders, they imported half the Middle East.
As long as the newcomers were willing to assimilate, or even take their position in the national salad bowl, things worked. But now, both here and in Europe, the immigrants don’t want to assimilate. They want ownership and control. Europe is seeing terrorism from these people, and we’re not too far behind, I fear.
But if we close the borders and purge the illegals, then who will pay for our entitlements? Brutally put, if we put an end to illegal immigration, the New Deal, Great Society and Compassionate Conservatism regimes all collapse. We’re back to the pre-Progressive Era circa 1901. While I think there is a lot to be said for that, how will Americans react when their government checks stop coming?
---But if we close the borders and purge the illegals, then who will pay for our entitlements?---
Legal immigrants.
"how will Americans react when their government checks stop coming?"
Do most people get more than they pay, I doubt it.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Since Republicans want their tax revenue and labor from illegals so bad, then I might as well vote Democrat.
They are experts in taxes and labor unions. We're halfway to turning into France anyway.
An Immigration Control Party (ICP)has a more going for it than a CC.....There is control over the process. The CC can be derailed in many ways. The ICP has focus and can effect policy more quickly.
Constitutional Conventions have been avoided for a reason. Once convened, there is nothing stopping the attendees from making additional changes, including changes some of us might not appreciate very much. No, there are Immigration Laws on the books, enforce them. Blackbird.
BTTT
I agree with you completely.
If we can't enforce the laws we have now,and can't enforce the borders that hold thep people who live under the constitution what makes anyone think a new amendment would make a difference in the reality of the situation.
Maybe 75% of americans don't want illegals...but no one is protesting or getting active. We can't even get the federal govt to pay the states for their housing illegals in their prisons and jails or help with their hospital budgets.
Jim-IMHO the problem IS NOT lack of legislation, but congressional malpractice....the refusal to provide the appropriate resources to enforce existing law. The reasons lie somewhere between K St. lobbyists in DC and each members local office at home. No Constitutional ammendment or additional laws will change that. Only Americans can fix it. Failure to fix it is a failure on each of our parts to do our God granted and priveleged duty.
I don't recall congress ever being asked for a lot of money to enforce immigration laws and protect the borders. Now just who do you think should have been doing the asking?
the congressional delegations of the border states....20 years ago.
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.