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

[Modok]

Bush is the one responsible for enforcing the laws and he is the one who should have been asking Congress for the funds to stop illegals from coming into this country and deporting the ones already here. Right now, Bush just wants to be able to give a good report to Fox during his next meeting.

[seemoAR]

Hope is known for chicken plants, chicken feed producers, illegal alien rest stops, and the birth place of slick willie and a presidental wanna be.

[mo]

To the extent congress does'nt do its job is yours and mine fault...that's OUR job as American citizens..holding congress accountable to its obligations. Takes work, diligence and accountability. Beats the heck out of having to water the tree of liberty with blood......to merely toss the matter into the Presidents lap is negligent citizenship.

[Modok]

The critter responsible for the mess is Bush not congress. Bush just wants his North American Security and Prosperity Agreement and the Senate is trying its hardest to give him what he wants.

[Spiff]

Maybe 75% of americans don't want illegals...but no one is protesting or getting active.

Well, there is the Minuteman Project, among others. There are also several candidates who are running on this issue such as Randy Graf who is running in Arizona's District 8 which lies right on the border.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

yeah, thanks for the reminder...this whole thing gets so depressing.

[blackie]

Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!

Support our Minutemen Patriots!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

You forgot the tar and feathers.

Oooh, yeah.
I'll have to update my Patriot's Emergency Motivation Kit.     =;^)

[tpaine]

placemark

[TigersEye]

It sounds like a good idea. The legislation being considered today is unacceptable.

[First_Salute]

Was the President of the United States, given authority by our Constitution, to sit in review of our statutes and select which that he will and will not enforce?

That question must be put before the U.S. Supreme Court, because the current President is trying to assert a line item veto of our laws, after they have been passed and signed into being our laws.

There does not appear to be any such authority for a President to make himself into being el Presidente, Maximum Leader, yet that is what Mr. Bush is set upon doing.

It will not take much for the communists to further additional protests against more laws that they wish for el President, Maximum Leader Bush, to not enforce.

(On the upside for RINO's and New York Republicans, why outsource to communist-enforced cheap labor in Red China, when Bush can arrange for such outsourcing, right in Aztlan (formerly, stateside L.A.)?)

Fidel Castro must be thrilled, at his success --- his people who flee from Cuba are turned back by Bush, and millions who have observed the rule of law, to become U.S. citizens, have been smacked in the face by Bush --- it is a great day for arbitrary rulers who ignore the rule of law.

There is no Constitutional Amendment that is needed, when the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are all that are required for the people to enforce the laws that our public servants will not do.

The rule of law, is the consent of the governed, and the consent of the governed, is the rule of law. No King, no President, no Judge, no Dictator has the power to decide what is our rule of law.

We do, because we are sovereign. We decide what is the authority of the government upon which to act, and when, and where, and how; and we create laws in expectation of their being enforced.

When Judges cry out for "judicial independence," we say, "nuts," because the judges' "protests" are meant for taking more power from the people.

When Administrators cry out for more authority for their offices, we say, "nuts," because the administrators' "protests" are meant for taking more power from the people.

The federal government of the United States, nor any of its agents and agencies, is any kind of "need" for more power.

What is needed, is for all government agents to be reminded that they are public servants and liable, and subject to lawful prosecution and imprisonment and harsh penalties, for failure to uphold their duties to the people - and to the memory of so many valiant people who have suffered in the fight for liberty.

American citizens, doing the work that cowering politicians will not do.

We supply the bite, not the "experts" inside government, nor the princes and princesses of power.

It is a great country, when liberty and the rule of law are respected, and when we must enforce our laws on these matters, against wayward government officials.

We have a law enforcement problem, with a chief law enforcement officer who is refusing to obey the law --- which is so common a problem throughout Mexico, where the people cannot, therefore, get justice; and we do not need to have government officials in the United States, institutionalizing the arbitrary and capricious acts of foreign dictators, big and small, and terrorizing people who are left in the dark because we never know what laws will be enforced by the politicians obsessed at any given moment.

We cannot have government leaders violating their oath, nor circumventing the Constitutional authority of their offices, nor operating in extra-Constitutional space.

We have the right to stop them, by putting them out of office and in jail, if need be.

[AdamSelene235]

A Constitutional Convention is about the most frightening thing that I can imagine right now. Can you even comprehend how people so ignorant of the current Constitution and the origin of our individual rights would destroy our Republic if given the power of a convention. If you think things are bad now, at least we have a standard to which we can point and say that things should be a certain way. A constitutional convention run by the ignorant and agenda-ridden would eliminate even that and totally loose our nation from its moorings.

Given our current political trajectory this is precisely the fate of our Republic with or without a Con Con.

I would argue it is preferable for our Congress Critters to explicitly renounce the US Constitution rather than use it as the empty prop it is today. Even the USSR had a Bill or Rights "guaranteeing" inviolability of the home and person. The Soviet Bill of Rights and our Bill of Rights currently serve the same purpose: to maintain the Hologram of Liberty.

[Politicalmom]

Right.

The guy who stated that immigration law is "too tough" is going to crack down on illegals.

I won't EVER vote for another Bush....at least from THIS family of Bushes.

[pissant]

Fine by me. Just tell me who should be CIC right now in lieu of GWB.

[Small-L]

I share the anger that I hear in your posts about a Constitutional Convention, and Rush's treatise on taxes.

FR has become a powerful voice (Thanks, Jim)--if we're serious about wanting to make a change in the political landscape, I'd suggest we form a third party (the Free Republic Party), or at the very least a unified faction within the Republican Party, with a specific and detailed platform of what we expect of candidates that we endorse and support.

The only way to get the attention of the RP hierarchy is to threaten their base of votes--there are enough FReepers that we could sway virtually every primary if we were to vote together as a block.

It's time to get our platform together; time to get busy on your campaign speeches, Jim! The nation wants a choice!

[SouthTexas]

While that should always be an option, it was also to note that this is not a new problem.

Personally I think Texas should annex Mexico and move the border to the Red. We will have our oil restocked and can ship cheap labor to the rest of the country. ;)

[Nuc1]

"And I think we could extract those payments pretty readily."

Quite. If Mexico had to pay the freight for these folks I bet the Mexican Government would shut the border down ASAP.

[Nuc1]

"FR has become a powerful voice (Thanks, Jim)--if we're serious about wanting to make a change in the political landscape, I'd suggest we form a third party (the Free Republic Party), or at the very least a unified faction within the Republican Party, with a specific and detailed platform of what we expect of candidates that we endorse and support. "

I support the idea of a unified faction within the Republican party 100% I support the idea of a third party 99% We have to do what it takes. The only caution I make is to strive to preserve conservative voting power to the extent practicable.

[HiJinx]

Alien/Borderlist Ping!

[hispanarepublicana]

I'll also contribute my idea: This is one of the companies that "rules" Mexico: Grupo Bimbo. Boycott their U.S. brands (the Boboli especially pains me, but I'll make the sacrifice) from their website at http://www.grupobimbo.com.mx/display.php?section=1&subsection=24

Bimbo Bakeries USA
Bimbo Bakeries USA is leader in Texas and the Western region of the country. It has 13 plants and operations in more than 22 states of the American Union and also offers premium line products under the following brands:


Oroweat, Mrs. Baird’s, Entenmann’s, Thomas´, Boboli, Tía Rosa, Marinela and Bimbo, among others. It also has Bimbo Snacks, USA, and Dayhoff, Inc. to commercialize its snacks and confectionery products.